The Revolution Will Be Fantasized- The Sanders revolution has not materialized in real world yet

[Gothmog]

Sanders proposals are not realistic and would have no chance in the real world where the GOP would block such pie in the sky proposals. Sanders justify his platform by promising a revolution where millions and millions of voters would show up and force the GOP to be reasonable. That revolution exists only in a fantasy world and has not been evident in the real world http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution

He went on to argue that he's going to win because he'll pile up votes now that the contest has moved out of the Deep South. This is a shorthand version of an argument that Sanders and his allies have been deploying recently in an attempt to downplay Clinton's lead in pledged delegates – "having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality" he told Larry Wilmore, host of "The Nightly Show," earlier this week.

There's a lot wrong with this formulation, as Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times this morning. It suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America." In Sanders' case, he's saying that red-state Democrats should be discounted because they're too conservative. But that's simply wrong, Krugman notes: Clinton isn't "riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats," she ran up the score by scoring lopsided victories among black voters ("let's be blunt, the descendants of slaves," he writes).

And the fact that the Deep South is conservative should be irrelevant, given that Sanders argues the principle obstacle to his super progressive agenda is campaign finance corruption rather than, say, ideology. Either he's leading a national movement, as he claims, or he's not.

Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."

And that's fine: If he can summon the revolution, then more power to him, literally and figuratively. But the Sanders revolution is breaking on the hard realities of math. The revolution will not be televised, the old song goes; but it can be fantasized – and it can be measured, in votes and delegates. And in every calculable respect, it's coming up short. That leaves Sanders to bank on an anti-democratic sleight of hand to secure the nomination. That's not a broad-based revolution; that's a palace coup.

Here's why: Despite Sanders' recent string of victories, there is no sense in which he is winning this race. As The Washington Post's Philip Bump wrote earlier this week:

In fact, by every possible democratic measure, Clinton is winning. She's winning in states (and territories) won, which isn't a meaningful margin of victory anyway. She's winning in the popular vote by 2.4 million votes – more than a third more than Sanders has in total. In part that's because Sanders is winning lower-turnout caucuses, but it's mostly because he's winning smaller states. And she's winning with both types of delegates.

Sanders' revolution is not real which is why he is losing the race in the real world.

[Iliyah]

1. K & R

[berniepdx420]

2. I love these super long soliloquies.. it's like you are paid per letter.. it seems like a talking

points memo...

[Gothmog]

5. Why do facts and numbers scare you?

[berniepdx420]

7. No.. not at all... hillary has all the numbers..or shall we call it what it is....bribes in the

form of speaking fees.. it's completely nauseating .. your allegiance blinds you to the facts

[Gothmog]

14. She has 2.4 million popular votes than Sanders

Where is this mythical but amusing revolution. Sanders' millions and millions of new voters are not showing up and his claim of a revolution are sad and false

[berniepdx420]

17. It aint over my texass friend.. and the South is done voting.. if you want an oligarchy then vote

for the Chairperson of the Establishment.. you are entitled to that no matter what ignorance it takes and how far the head has to be thrusted into the sand..

And to minimize what Bernie has done and what he is doing is just plain stupid

[Gothmog]

19. Are you silly enough to believe this-then put your money where you mouth is

If you are silly and so poorly informed to believe your post, then open an Irish brokerage account and buy an option contract on this silly belief http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination You will get great pricing because the smart money is only giving Sanders a 8% chance of being the nominee. The smart investors will be happy to take your money. if you turn out to be right you would get a good return on your money

[berniepdx420]

20. no thanks.. I work hard for my money.. not much of a gambler.. but your condescension makes you

even more believable as a hilldawg supporter

bye silly boy

[Gothmog]

21. So you really do not believe your own claims

Why am I not surprised

[berniepdx420]

22. I believe that it aint over yet.. and factually it is not over yet.... if the polls are correct

this time then she will win NY..but if they are not on point and you lose New York... you are in quite a bit of trouble... we shall see..won't we.. but your smug now and you'll be smug whether you win or lose NY.. just like the candidate you support

[Gothmog]

28. You really do not understand the concepts being discussed

Hillary Clinton is 210 delegates ahead of Sanders. Sanders has to win New York by double digits to have a chance of over coming this deficit. Sanders has to win big to hope to catch up. We will see who is happy on Tuesday night

[berniepdx420]

31. You really are the captain of condescension and smugness .. I am well aware of the numbers...

let the people vote.. we will fight to the end..

now because you are quite the miserable person to converse with... I will use my rarely used ignore.. bye bye

[Gothmog]

74. Have you woken up and realized that the Sanders revolution was a flop yet?

[Gothmog]

78. I have never accepted the argument that Sanders is electable

Sanders is totally unvetted because the new media does not believe that he will be the nominee and the Clinton campaign has been treating Sanders with kids gloves. There is a ton of stuff that would be used by Trump to destroy Sanders. I am not willing to risk the control of the SCOTUS to a candidate who I firmly believe is not electable. Trump and Rove has way too much material that would destroy Sanders in a general election.

[berniepdx420]

23. plus..your candidate just hired a high powered CRIMINAL attorney.. she may get indicted soon for

stupid handling of national security..

[Gothmog]

25. What a sad and poorly informed post

It must be sad to be supporting a candidate whose only chance of being the nominee is an indictment that is not going to happen. I feel sorry for you.

[berniepdx420]

27. I feel sorry for you too.. being so blind and confused.. but you seem content so.. happy life

[Gothmog]

29. I am enjoying your posts a great deal

You really do not understand the fact that Sanders will not be the nominee.

[synergie]

85. You might want to figure out how time works, and what the word 'bribe" means.

Paid speeches AFTER she left office are somehow "bribes" now? Do you just not understand how bribery works? You don't seem to be acquainted with facts, or an understanding of reality or time works.

[CoffeeCat]

36. You may be interested in this post

A Politico reporter said that the Clinton camp emailed him six times --trying to get media outlets to push incendiary talking points about Bernie's "Southern Strategy" remarks from last night's debate.

Clinton pushed hard to get these talking points widely disseminated.

The US News article is one, among many spineless media outlets that I found had taken the bait. Seems as if many press members are unprofessional, useful idiots.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280175433

[berniepdx420]

39. thanks CoffeeCat... i started using my block function today.. blocked Gothmog.. he is so smug

condescending...

[CoffeeCat]

40. Your intuition was spot on

about sensing the talking points.

[berniepdx420]

41. Where are you from ?

[Demsrule86]

90. You mean like the 9-11 guy

Who posted the 'truth' about emails...and had been posted and linked to a number of times. It is called an op-ed people. This guy is correct. Bernie Sanders wants a revolution so do I...and millions of Americans. However, there is no Bernie revolution. He does not have even enough support to win a primary and has in these last days seriously damaged his credibility and brand. Attacking a Democrat...almost appearing to collude with trump...most unseemly in a progressive. His behavior reeks of bitterness and spite. It makes me sad for him which is kind of strange because I really don't like Bernie Sanders.

[Chasstev365]

3. in other words; if you can't beat them join them?

I think the GOP prefers your thinking to Democrats fighting them day on night on behalf of the workers of this nation!

[Gothmog]

6. Sorry, Bernie Sanders. There is zero evidence of your ‘political revolution’ yet

Are you admitting that the Sanders' revolution is not materializing? It is my understanding that the reason why Sanders is proposing a number of programs that have no chance of passing is that his revolution will force the GOP in congress to be reasonable. The trouble is that there are no signs of this revolution. revolution https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/

Bernie Sanders recorded a resounding victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday. He crushed his rival, Hillary Clinton, with no less than 60 percent of the vote. If Sanders hopes not only to win the election but to achieve his ambitious progressive agenda, though, that might not be enough.

To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."

In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.

To be sure, the general election is still seven months away. Ordinary Americans might be paying little attention to the campaign at this point, and if Sanders wins the nomination, he'll have the help of the Democratic Party apparatus in registering new voters. The political revolution hasn't started, though, at least not yet.

Without this revolution, I am not sure how Sanders proposes to advance his unrealistic agenda.

I live in the real world and I simply do not believe that Sanders' agenda is realistic and the lack of any evidence of a Sanders revolution reinforces my opinion

Please vote for the candidate of your choice for any reason that you deem appropriate. Others are free to vote for the candidate of their choice based on the facts as they see them

[Gothmog]

4. Sanders says Southern primaries ‘distort reality’

Sanders' lame justification for why he is 2.4 million votes and 210 delegates behind is really sad http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-says-southern-primaries-distort-reality

In fact, the same week that Clinton did well in states like Florida and Virginia, Sanders won in Oklahoma and Nebraska. There’s no reason to believe those Democratic voters are any more or less important – or more or less in line with reality – than any other group of Democratic voters.

What’s more, the South may be filled with “red” states, but in Democratic primaries, it’s economically liberal African-American voters who represent the bulk of those who are turning out to participate. Their votes don’t “distort” reality so much as they reflect reality.

Maybe the argument is that Southern voters count, but they shouldn’t have a prominent role at the start of the primary season. Except, (a) the South doesn’t go first; the overwhelmingly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire go first; and (b) I don’t know why states with fewer black voters would do a better job of ensuring that reality isn’t distorted.

Perhaps Sanders means Southern states aren’t truly representative of the Democratic electorate. Except (a) given the importance of African-American communities in the party, I’m not sure why not; and (b) are voters in Utah, Kansas, and Idaho more representative of the Democratic electorate?

Maybe he means that Democrats won’t do well in these Southern states in the general election. That’s true, but once again, the same can be said of many of the states Sanders has also won.

As we discussed the other day, the New York Times reported last week that the Sanders campaign deliberately focused its efforts away from the South for a reason: “Sanders and his advisers and allies knew that black voters would be decisive in those Southern contests, but he had been unable to make significant inroads with them.”

As a tactical matter, this made perfect sense. There was no reason for the senator and his operation to build an electoral strategy around states he was likely to lose.

But as a rhetorical matter, arguing that states in which black voters were decisive “kind of distort reality” is a very different kind of message, one that Sanders still has time to change.

Sanders' revolution is a fantasy and his justifications for being behind do not stand up

[uponit7771]

11. Yeap, not going to let them forget these dog whistles... too many of them from his campaign

[CentralCoaster]

8. This is not a dream, it's just restoration of past policy, programs, FDR-minded Democracy.

Of course if you want to reinforce the establishment view that change is bad, that public works are stupid, and that single payer health care is impossible or constitutes Free Stuff, well you go right ahead.

All we're really doing is trying to get back to our roots and the time when we KNEW our children would have an easier life with less strife, not a worse future with less hope.

[uponit7771]

9. It started with revolution meaning McConnel would listen to a million people outside his window...

... that was the first indicator

[Politicalboi]

10. Wow, I had no idea

Then we better get in line then. Thank you so much. I'll now support the corrupt one who had to hire a criminal lawyer today. The one who uses people for votes, and then throws them away till the next election. The one who launders money through the Clinton Foundation and creates coups in Honduras. Go Team!

More fantasy bullshit from those who want this race over. Get lost! Bernie or BUST!!!!

[CrowCityDem]

12. Iowa & New Hampshire 'distorted reality' too.

And you can't start a revolution when you tell a whole section of the country they don't count.

[OwlinAZ]

80. It is worse than a distortion of reality

when a great preponderance of early voting states are from one region, the deep South.
And the seven states holding contests in the region appear to play a pivotal role in selecting the Republican and Democratic nominees.
This system is a mess and should be changed forthwith.
Having the majority of first speaking states clumped up in any region or demographic skews results.

[Gothmog]

104. Iowa and New Hampshire are two 90%+ white states

These states do not reflect the demographics of the Democratic party. The deep south states are far more diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire and the voters in these states reflect the demographics of the Democratic Party

[SoLeftIAmRight]

13. wow wow wow - it is easier to say "no we can't"

...

[Gothmog]

16. If you want this so-called revolution to be taken seriously, then produce the voters

Where are the millions and millions of new voters who Sanders promised. Sanders is behind the popular vote by 2.4 million and I bet that this differential will only go up

[SoLeftIAmRight]

18. Climate change and the sixth global mass-extinction event is happening now

some stand in the way of change

[Gothmog]

24. Clinton Is Winning The States That Look Like The Democratic Party

Here are some facts for the silly sanders supporters to ignore or not understand http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/

“Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the Deep South, no question about it,” Bernie Sanders said during Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Brooklyn. “That is the most conservative part of this great country,” he continued. “But you know what, we’re out of the Deep South now. And we’re moving up.”

I have a few problems with this line of argument, which seems to imply that Democratic voters in the Deep South don’t reflect the larger Democratic electorate. (The remarks Thursday night echo previous comments made by Sanders and his campaign.) Consider Sanders’s reference to the term “Deep South,” which traditionally describes Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina: These are five of the only six states, along with Maryland, where at least a quarter of the population is black. Given the United States’ history of disenfranchising black voters — not to mention the importance of black voters to Democrats in November — it’s dicey for Sanders to diminish Clinton’s wins there.

But the Deep South isn’t Sanders’s only issue. His problems in the rest of the South are what really dooms him. Clinton’s largest net delegate gains over Sanders came from Texas (+72) and Florida (+68), two states that are within the South as the Census Bureau (and most other people) define it. Clinton also cleaned Sanders’s clock in Virginia and North Carolina. Overall, Clinton gained a net of 155 delegates on Sanders in the five Deep South states, but she also added 211 delegates to her margin in the rest of the region....

n addition to being important to the Democratic Party’s electoral present and future, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Texas are quite diverse. They’re diverse ideologically — Miami and Austin aren’t exactly “the most conservative part” of the country — and they’re diverse racially. They contain not only a substantial number of African-Americans but also Hispanics and, increasingly, Asian-American voters.

In fact, these states are among the most demographically representative of the diverse Obama coalition that Clinton or Sanders will have to rely on in November.

Sanders revolution has not materialized while Clinton are winning states that reflect the Democratic party

[redstateblues]

42. Run for the hills. The world is coming to an end!!

[Gothmog]

95. But not Clinton

[Bonobo]

88. He GOT millions and millions of voters. nt

[Gothmog]

94. And yet he trails Clinton by 3.2 million votes

[Bonobo]

98. Yes, but your assertion was ridiculous. You said "Where are the millions".

You sound petulant when you say things like that and the way you are responding now.

[Gothmog]

100. If Sanders actually produced his so-called revolution he would not be trailing by 3.2 million votes

This revolution is a flop and the GOP would ignore Sanders if he tried to propose his unrealistic agenda

[Gothmog]

76. Read Kevin Drum's piece in post 73

In the real world change takes hard work and not a magical revolution

[Gothmog]

15. Imagine Bernie Sanders wins the White House. Then what?

Sanders' plans for adopting his proposals depend on these new voters. Here is how Sanders thinks that he will be able to force the GOP to be reasonable http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what

Bernie Sanders has made some very big promises when it comes to his legislative priorities: He says he’ll make college free, pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and institute a generous single-payer national health insurance program. And when he’s asked how he’ll turn these promises into reality, he says that he and his supporters will help bring about a “political revolution.”

That’s a phrase Sanders uses often, but what does he mean by it? Sanders has said that if he wins the presidency, his victory will be accompanied by a “huge increase in voter turnout”—one that he thinks might end Republican control of Congress. But Sanders acknowledges that the House and Senate could, in spite of his best efforts, remain in GOP hands come next January.

Given that likelihood, Sanders offers an alternate means for achieving his political revolution. He says he knows that a Democratic president can’t simply “sit down and negotiate” with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOP’s behavior over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency would not dispute that, and in any event, no compromise with Republicans would ever lead to single-payer anyway.

So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:

What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]

And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.

The rest of the DK article debunks that concept that Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell could be influenced by these new voters but we never get to this issue and Sanders himself admits that he will not bet elected without this revolution. So far we are not seeing any evidence of this revolution. Again, Sanders's whole campaign is based on this revolution and so it is appropriate to ask where these new voters are?

It is hard for me to take Sanders' proposals seriously including the ones you want to talk about unless and until we see some evidence of this revolution.

Again, where are these millions and millions of new voters?

[Hortensis]

112. New voters? How about if the old ones just haul

out the old credit cards?

Good posts, Gothmog. Does it ever seem like kicking mean puppies who keep attacking your ankles, though?

[Gothmog]

115. Yep

I am not opposed to change but I live in the real world.

[Armstead]

26. No need to change. Everything is perfect as is. We just need a good manager.

This message brought to you by the real purveyors of "fantasy."

[Gothmog]

30. These guys would do a far better job than Sanders current team

[Armstead]

33. yeah from 2 percent recognition to a close second against a massive Political Machine

Yeah they did a terrible job

[think]

32. Single payer, a living wage, family leave, tuition free college, ending the drug war, breaking up

too big to fail banks.

Those of you opposed to these things are cogs in the wheels of time....

[Gothmog]

35. None of these policies have any chance of being adopted without millions and millions of new voters

Sanders' proposals have zero chance of being adopted without his revolution mobilizing millions and millions of new voters who are failing to show up.

[think]

37. And you do nothing but stand in the way....

[Gothmog]

48. My main issue is control of the SCOTUS and Sanders is too weak of general election candidate

I am not comfortable risking control of the SCOTUS for the next generation to a weak general election candidate like Sanders

[Gothmog]

97. I live in the real world and do not believe in magic

sanders needs a magical revolution to push his proposals. That magical revolution did not happen

[rhett o rick]

96. Using your logic (?) the only proposals that have a chance of being passed are the ones

where Hillary and the Republicons agree. And apparently that's what's more important than fighting for a living wage, fighting to reduce poverty, fighting to rebuild our infrastructure, fighting against Hillary's Prisons For Profits.

You are saying that if we want to get things done, take the same positions as the Republicons.

Clinton does agree with the Republicons on many issues. I guess you will be happy to see progress on;

The corruption of Big Money in government via Citizens United.

Job killing "Free Trade" agreements

Fracking for oil company profits over people's water quality.

Unregulated domestic spying and no oversight for the NSA/CIA Security State.

Drone killing of terrorist "suspects" in foreign lands (100 innocents killed for each suspect)

Prisons for Profits and tough sentencing for marijuana use.

Denying those in pain the option of medical marijuana.

American Exceptionalism as an excuse for neocon imperialism.

The use of cluster bombs near civilian areas.

[Gothmog]

105. There is nothing wrong with incremental changes in that these changes are real

Sanders' proposals have no chance of passage and his platform would be pure poison for down ballot candidates. Look at the Kevin Drum article cited on this thread. Incremental change is better than no change at all. Sanders' magical revolution did not happen and so Sanders would have no chance of passing his programs. There can be progress but it takes hard work.

I live in the real world where change is hard work. Magical thinking does not work and I believe that some change is better than no change at all.

[rhett o rick]

110. That's some kind of rationalization to avoid fighting for those that are struggling.

I hear, "It's too hard." If you look at the changes we've had over the last 30 years, we have had some of your incremental changes in social justice but the changes to our, the 99%, economy have been gigantic. How many trillions of dollars moved from the 99% to the Rich and Wonderful that you support? Was it 3 or 5 trillion. And 5 trillion dollars moved from the 99% to the 1% that you revere when the banks asked nicely and the Democrats wet their pants trying to pay them fast enough. THESE ARE NOT INCREMENTAL CHANGES. People, humans if you will, are literally and I do mean literally are dying from povery, while the Oligarch Followers play patty cake with the Rich.

If our founders had your incremental changes are ok attitude we'd still be under British control.

Again, I agree that if elected Sanders would have a hard time, but Clinton not having a hard time means the Republicons would be getting their way the same way they did with her in 2002. "Georgie how can I help"

Just how high does the poverty rate have to get before you figure out you choose the wrong side of this class war?

[Gothmog]

114. Sanders had his chance to prove that his revolution was real

Sanders' so-called revolution was suppose to produce so many new voters that the GOP would have to accept his unrealistic proposals. That revolution did not materialize. Sanders did not produce sufficient voters to force the GOP to accept his proposals and in fact got 3.2 million less popular votes and 300 less delegates than Hillary Clinton.

Again if you believe Sanders' premise that it will take the rising up of sufficient voters that would force the GOP to accept his proposals, then it is clear that Sanders revolution failed.

I live in the real world. I want to work for many of Sanders proposals but the votes are not there. Sanders has failed to deliver on the type of revolution he called for and so in the real world one must work for incremental change. The real world is a nice place but change is hard and requires hard work.

[redstateblues]

45. How about free cars?

Nationalize the auto industry. Transportation is necessary

[think]

47. Any more right wing insults you can think up?

[redstateblues]

51. That could save Bernie in the NY primary

Why would you be against free cars? Have you never been ripped off by a car dealer?

[oldandhappy]

34. Revolutions grow and bobble around and grow some more

It can take a century for a revolution to ripen and explode...or not. Revolutions can grow in more than one direction. Eventually the revolution will not be about party but about inequality. Our inequality is growing.

[Gothmog]

38. But we are dealing with this election cycle and one candidate has 2.4 million more votes

Sanders' revolution has not materialized yet.

[oldandhappy]

43. yep!!

Don't worry. It will come. Not today. But it will come. We may have to live with inequality for awhile longer, but the revolution will come. The Romans had to wait. The Irish had to wait. The French had to wait. The revolution comes. We cannot make it come faster than people are willing to commit. And when it comes, the wealthy cannot stop it. In the mean time, we have the content now. We have a movement and we must nurture it. Our biggest danger is burn out.

Saw the clip of Sanders speaking at the Vatican. The man next to him was nodding his head.

The repubs are going to have all sorts of fractions exploding with Cruz and Trump. The revolution will come from many directions.

I know there is a lot of passion for NOW, smile. I am more sanguine.

[OwlinAZ]

81. Please give us a site that verifies this number including primary dates.

[obamneycare]

44. What if I told you his "unrealistic" proposals were ALREADY winning in the real world...?

...

While this all played out, Sanders watched as two governors, a federal agency head, and a president implemented some of his “unrealistic” policy proposals.

1. New York and California pass a $15/hour minimum wage

...

2. President Obama cracks down on corporate tax dodgers

...

3. Drug Enforcement Agency may reconsider marijuana policy

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-policy-victories/

[Gothmog]

46. Why single payer died in Vermont

If single payer can not work in Vermont, then there is no chance that it will be adopted in the entire country http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711#ixzz3xciq2Nj5

So single-payer advocates looked instead to make a breakthrough in the states. Bills have been introduced from Hawaii to New York; former Medicare chief Don Berwick made it a key plank of his unsuccessful primary race for Massachusetts governor.

Vermont under Shumlin became the most visible trailblazer. Until Wednesday, when the governor admitted what critics had said all along: He couldn’t pay for it.

“It is not the right time for Vermont” to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals’ income “might hurt our economy.”

Vermont’s outcome is a “small speed bump,” said New York Assembly member Richard Gottfried, who’s been pushing single-payer bills for more than 20 years. But opponents says it’s the end of the road.

“If cobalt blue Vermont couldn’t find a way to make single-payer happen, then it’s very unlikely that any other state will,” said Jack Mozloom, spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Business.

“There will never be a good time for a massive tax increase on employers and consumers in Vermont, so they should abandon that silly idea now and get serious,” Mozloom added.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711#ixzz3xdKH1mGn

Sanders is proposing a skeleton of a plan (not a real plan at all) that has no chance of passage. The refusal of Sanders to answer the question was an admission that even Sanders knows that this plan is not real.

[obamneycare]

49. Seems like the failure of single payer in VT is one of economics and scale, rather than politics

A significant source of the savings in Bernie's Medicare for all plan involves renegotiating the costs of care. An individual state is never going to have the kind of leverage to negotiate compensation schedules and drug prices with healthcare providers and drug companies that the United Sates has.

The nation-wide plan is feasible, and if you don't want to take my word for it, or the word of every other major industrialized country, then consider the advocacy for the plan from the 20,000+ member Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP):

The national debate on single-payer health reform, or "Medicare for All," that has emerged in the course of the presidential primaries is a welcome development. But unfortunately a number of misrepresentations about single-payer national health insurance – and the prospects for its attainment – have crept into the dialogue and are potentially misleading the public.

Most of these misrepresentations, or myths, have been decisively refuted by peer-reviewed research. They include the following:

Myth: A single-payer system would impose an unacceptable financial burden on U.S. households. Reality: Single payer is the only health reform that pays for itself. By replacing hundreds of insurers and thousands of different private health plans, each with their own marketing, enrollment, billing, utilization review, actuary and other departments, with a single, streamlined, tax-financed nonprofit program, more than $400 billion in health spending would be freed up to guarantee coverage to all of the 30 million people who are currently uninsured and to upgrade the coverage of everyone else, including the tens of millions who are underinsured. Co-pays and deductibles, which have been rapidly rising under the Affordable Care Act, would be eliminated. Further, the single-payer system’s bargaining clout would rein in rising costs for drugs and medical supplies. Lump-sum budgets for hospitals and capital planning would control costs even more.

A recent study shows 95 percent of U.S. households would come out financially ahead under an improved version of Medicare for all. The graduated, progressively structured tax burden would be based on ability to pay, and the heavy cost to average U.S. households of private insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and many currently uncovered services would be eliminated. Patients could go to the doctor or hospital of their choice, and would no longer be restricted to proprietary networks. Multiple studies over a period of several decades, including by the General Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, show that a single-payer system would provide universal coverage at a much lower cost, per capita, than we are spending now. International experience confirms it. Even our traditional Medicare program, which falls short of a true single-payer system, has much lower overhead than private insurance, and shows that publicly financed programs can deliver affordable, reliable care.

A single-payer system would also greatly diminish the administrative burden on our nation’s physicians and hospitals, freeing up physicians, in particular, to concentrate on doing what they know best: caring for patients.

Covering everyone for all medically necessary care is affordable; keeping the current private-insurance-based system intact is not.

...

Myth: The goal of establishing a single-payer system in the U.S. is unrealistic, or “politically infeasible.” Reality: It’s true that single-payer health reform faces formidable opposition, especially from the private insurance industry, Big Pharma, and other for-profit interests in health care, along with their allies in government. This prompts some people to conclude that single payer is out of reach and therefore not worth fighting for. While such moneyed opposition should not be underestimated, there is no reason why a well-informed and organized public, including the medical profession, cannot prevail over these vested interests. We should not sell the American people short. At earlier points in U.S. history, the abolition of slavery and the attainment of women’s suffrage were considered unrealistic, and yet the movements to achieve these goals were ultimately victorious and we now wonder how those injustices were allowed to stand for so long.

What is truly “unrealistic” is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care, and control costs, in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma.

We call upon our nation’s lawmakers and the political leaders of all political parties to heed public opinion and to do the right thing by acting swiftly to bring about the only equitable, financially responsible and humane cure for our health care ills: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for all.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/january/doctors-group-welcomes-national-debate-on-%E2%80%98medicare-for-all%E2%80%99

[Gothmog]

56. Vox: Most Bernie Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay for his revolution

According to some interesting polling from VOX, Sanders own supporters will not want to pay the additional taxes necessary to fund Sanders single payer system. Read the polling http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution

Bernie Sanders says his platform makes financial sense for most Americans. For example, his campaign says Sanders's single-payer health care system would save an average family of four almost $6,000 per year.

But in order to pay for his proposed programs, Sanders needs to increase taxes on virtually everyone in America. So if you're a voter, the question is simple:

Are you willing to pay more taxes for his proposals, like nationalized health care and free public college tuition?

How much more?

When we polled voters, we found most Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for his biggest proposals. That's well short of how much more the average taxpayer would pay under his tax plan.

We asked voters how much more they are willing to pay for nationalized health care and free public college

We conducted a poll the week of April 4 in partnership with the nonpartisan technology and media company Morning Consult. In it, we asked voters how much more they would be willing to pay for two of Sanders's big propositions: a universal health care system covering all Americans and free tuition at public colleges and universities.

Most Americans say they are willing to pay something extra for these programs:

Nationalized health care: Around 80 percent of Sanders supporters are willing to pay more in federal taxes for universal health care coverage, compared with about 70 percent of Clinton supporters and about 40 percent of those supporting a Republican candidate.

Free public college tuition: A slightly lower percentage of people were willing to pay more for free public college tuition: 80 percent of Sanders supporters, 60 percent of Clinton supporters, and about 40 percent of those supporting a Republican candidate.
But when we look at how much more voters are willing to pay, we get a better idea of how voters view Sanders's plan.

Two in three Sanders supporters don't want to pay more than $1,000, or at all, for universal health care

About 66 percent of Sanders supporters said they wouldn't be willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for universal health care. This includes the 8 percent of Sanders supporters who aren't willing to pay anything at all.

Sanders platform is not being supported by Sanders own supporters.

[obamneycare]

58. Well, sure, when you phrase it that way...

Sounds like the Vox pollsters asked people about willingness to pay more, without explaining that the tax would offset their current private insurance rates, and would amount in a net savings (est. over $5,000 per year for the average family). You can get people to answer things in a lot of strange ways if you phrase the question misleadingly.

[obamneycare]

50. Furthermore, with Sanders as the nominee, a GOP congress isn't a foregone conclusion...

It is widely held that the Democrats have a shot of reclaiming the Senate in 2016, just based on the fact that they have 14 fewer seats to defend, only need to flip 5, and Dems perform better in presidential election years.

Less talked about, is the hope of a Democratic wave sweeping the House, which researchers at the Center for Politics are saying could happen. The theory goes that the polarizing nature of Trump or Cruz as the GOP nominee would work to suppress the republican vote in all but the reddest of red districts. The analysis only imagined a Trump-Clinton or a Cruz-Clinton race, but in their estimation, this scenario could net the Dems 5-10 seats in the House, of the 30 necessary to win a majority. Bernie's well-demonstrated general election superiority to Clinton (high favorables, crushing with Independents and first-time voters) could only portend even better odds of winning significant numbers of House seats.

[Gothmog]

57. According to Nancy Pelosi, Sanders' platform would kill down ballot congressional candidates

Sanders plan to raise taxes would kill down ballot candidates http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/nancy-pelosi-bernie-sanders-taxes/

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi maintains she isn't taking sides in the Democratic primary for president, but pushed back against Bernie Sanders' pledge that he would raise taxes to pay for his health care plan, saying flatly on Wednesday, "We're not running on any platform of raising taxes."

Speaking at the House Democratic Caucus' annual retreat here, Pelosi sidestepped a question about the growing concerns of fellow Democrats over the impact Sanders could have on 2016 House and Senate races, saying, "I'm very proud of all three of our candidates."
But the top House Democrat didn't mince words when it came to Vermont Senator Sanders' health care proposal, dismissing the notion of a single-payer health care plan, curtly saying, "That's not going to happen."

[obamneycare]

60. Recent evidence suggests otherwise

... In most cases, the results show that the support for the incumbent House candidate increases when there is a strong presidential coattail in the district. We found that this effect is even larger when turnout surges in presidential elections. On the other hand, the analysis shows that this electoral bonus declines when turnout is reduced in the following midterm election. Furthermore the results demonstrate that incumbent support is somewhat weaker when candidates trail a weak presidential coattail. This effect is more substantive in presidential elections when turnout is higher, but more or less neutralized when turnout is reduced in midterm elections.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-012-9947-7

Virtually all of the most recent general election polling shows Sanders to be the superior general election candidate against Republicans (and we've reached the point in the calendar when those forecasts are more accurate than not). This is likely explained by his favorability ratings, which continue to tower over Clinton's. This indicates he would have stronger coattails than would Sec. Clinton.

Compare the map of toss-up and slight R-leaning districts, to the map of this primary and caucus season:

http://cookpolitical.com/house/maps

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map

... you'll find that Bernie did well in many of those toss-up districts that will be needed to reclaim the House:

Table 4: Crystal Ball 2016 House ratings

[img][/img]

...I started copying over the county-by-county results, but it was getting tedious. But glance, if you would, at Bernie's performance in the following currently-Republican-held, toss-up districts:

CO-6 (Central Colorado, just NE of Denver)
ME-2 (Most of Maine except the very SW corner)
MI-1 (Northern Michigan)
MN-2 (Southeast Minnesota, Twin Cities suburbs)
NH-1 (Eastern New Hampshire)
WI-8 (Northeast Wisconsin, Green Bay area)


And, we don't know the results of NY yet, but Zephyr Teachout is a strong contender for the Dem nomination for NY-19, and would ride some serious coattails if Bernie Sanders were the nominee.


Not only did Sanders win in those areas, he also won each of them, without exception, with remarkably high turnout -- a factor which favors Dems in general, and would favor those down-ballot Democratic candidates in November.

Bernie Sanders takes Colorado after young people turn out for caucuses

Heavy turnout at Democratic caucuses in Southwest Colorado and throughout the state Tuesday was grass-roots politics at its finest – and sometimes most chaotic.

The numbers at the simultaneous Republican caucuses were much lower, and the chaos generally replaced with dissatisfaction over the lack of a straw vote for presidential candidates.

“Across Colorado, Democrats are excited and energized by our two great presidential candidates, who are talking about growing the middle class and moving our country forward,” said Colorado Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio, “while the Republican presidential candidates continue their race to the bottom with fear-mongering and demagoguery.”

Final numbers weren’t available late Tuesday, as voting at many caucuses ran late because of the overwhelming turnout. ...

“I’m getting reports of auditoriums, libraries and gyms, they were all full,” said Dulce Saenz, state director for the Bernie Sanders campaign. “I think that’s indicative of the spark he is generating.”

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20160301/NEWS01/160309941/Sanders-takes-Colorado-after-young-people-turn-out-for-caucuses

Bernie Sanders Just Won Maine Caucuses in Blockbuster Turnout

Senator Bernie Sanders is the projected winner of the Maine caucuses, meaning the Vermont senator has won three out of four states in the last two days.

With 76 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders won Maine by a 64-35 margin, according to The New York Times’ election results. He is expected to take home a wide majority of the state’s 25 delegates, which are awarded proportionally. With the exception of Massachusetts, where Sanders lost by a margin of just 1.4%, Sen. Sanders has swept New England, winning by double-digit leads in New Hampshire and winning by such a crushing margin in Vermont that he was awarded every pledged delegate. Maine is the fifth caucus state Sanders has won, having previously won the Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, and Nebraska caucuses as well.

Sanders’ overwhelming win was likely the result of record-high caucus turnout, particularly in Portland. This video shows how long some of the lines were:

http://twitter.com/Phitter/status/706573541207056385

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-wins-maine/

How Bernie Sanders won Michigan

...

The presidential polls were off. Way off.

They indicated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would easily win the state's primary election.

...

But those polls missed the enthusiasm for Sanders on the ground, especially among young people, said Mark Brewer, former chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party.

...

Consider the voter turnout shattered records when more than 2.5 million people cast ballots. Sanders won big just about everywhere, except in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. And while a big showing in Wayne County and its city of Detroit often spells victories for many candidates, the turnout was 25% in Detroit and 31% in Wayne County, while the statewide total was closer to 40%.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/09/high-turnout-late-deciding-voters-give-bernie-sanders-michigan-primary/81527800/

Bernie Sanders decisively wins Minnesota Democratic caucuses

Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton amid massive turnout at Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party precinct caucuses across Minnesota on Tuesday.

The Associated Press and several other media outlets called the race for the Vermont senator before 10:30 p.m. He had held a double-digit lead most of the night as results trickled in.

State DFL Chairman Ken Martin called it “a very decisive victory.” He and most other DFL leaders had backed Clinton, but he said Minnesota is a progressive state and Sanders is a progressive politician.

Martin said it appeared that Sanders would win each of the state’s eight congressional districts.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/01/bernie-sanders-wins-minnesota-democratic-caucuses/

Bernie Sanders thanks "yuge" voter turnout in New Hampshire victory speech

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday said his win in New Hampshire's primary was a result of a record-breaking turnout.

"Tonight, with what appears to be a record-breaking turnout, because of a 'yuge' voter turnout -- and I say 'yuge' -- we won," the Vermont independent told enthusiastic supporters in his victory speech rally in Concord. "We harnessed the energy and excitement that the Democratic Party will need to succeed in November."

...

He suggested that if voters turn out in large numbers in future nominating contests, he could do just as well.

"What happened here in New Hampshire in terms of an enthusiastic and aroused electorate -- people came out in large numbers - that will happen all over this country," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-thanks-yuge-voter-turnout-in-new-hampshire-victory-speech/

Bernie Sanders Overcomes Massive Deficit to Win Wisconsin

As has been the trend throughout the 2016 Democratic primary, Sanders pulled out a victory as an underdog through massive get-out-the-vote operations by the campaign and its army of volunteers. Today’s primary contest has marked the highest primary turnout in the Badger State since 1980. Voter turnout was particularly high for college students — at Marquette University in Milwaukee, students waited for hours to cast their ballot. And even in rural Green Bay, lines stretched out the door not long after polling places opened:

...

In neighboring Appleton, Wisconsin, city officials predicted turnout to exceed over 85 percent by the end of the day, having already achieved nearly 30 percent turnout by lunchtime:
...

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-wins-wisconsin-blowout/

[Thinkingabout]

52. I agree, won't happen, not based in reality. The 2.4 million votes says a lot and we

are not voting the Republicans, we the people does not want the revolution.

[Lucinda]

53. KNR

[Eric J in MN]

54. Bernie Sanders' campaign is about more than one election.

In 2004 and 2008, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) ran on Single Payer and a more peaceful foreign policy.

Kucinich won zero states.

Bernie Sanders has won sixteen states and will probably win more.

If Sanders isn't the nominee, one of his supporters may be the Democratic nominee someday. The closer Sanders comes, the more likely is that another liberal will run on a similar platform someday.

[Demsrule86]

91. It could have been about more than one election

I have hope for a more progressive future. However, the Sanders campaign has been so negative and now with the attempt to overturn the vote...it is just over for the so called revolution.

[Gothmog]

103. Agree-the revolution is not happening and now this fight is for Sanders' vanity

[Demsrule86]

113. I liked Sander well enough to vote for him in Ohio

But I was torn...finally decided it was ok in the primary in Ohio. I knew he would not win Ohio. I like some of his policies, but not him anymore.

[Gothmog]

116. I also like many of his policies but I live in the real world

For Sanders to have a chance of getting the GOP to go along with his platform, Sanders had to produce a true revolution that had sufficient numbers of new voters that the GOP would be forced to be reasonable. That did not happen.

[highprincipleswork]

55. It's absolutely real. If everyone who agreed with his policies stood up like humans, there would be

NO CONTEST.

As it is, I believe Bernie will win this anyway.

If you have heart and spirit, and you feel that what he is talking about would make an American you could believe it, I would suggest you join in and put your vote behind your beliefs.

[Gothmog]

59. Bernie Sanders’ “Revolution” Isn’t Good Enough

I am not the only one wondering about the effectiveness of the revolution concept http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/bernie_sanders_revolution_isn_t_good_enough.html

To make a more practical analysis, a political revolution might put Sanders into the White House and win the Senate for Democrats, but it doesn’t change the landscape of House districts—where the Republican Party holds a firm advantage—and it doesn’t diminish conservative ideological intensity. In the wake of a Sanders win—as we saw in the wake of Obama’s 2008 victory—conservatives will push back.....

Even with a viable political revolution, a President Sanders would have a hard time persuading or budging a Republican House—still intact because of a powerful partisan advantage, cemented through gerrymandering and geography—that represents radically different, opposing values. The distance between his plans and their priorities is so great that it’s hard to imagine a world where the two sides can be bridged. You could pressure those Republicans through grassroots action, but they weren’t elected by the “political revolution.” Why would they listen?

Indeed, when you take disagreement and political pluralism seriously, it is difficult to even conceptualize the revolution that Sanders describes and touts as the key to success. Does it emerge in America’s conservative bastions? Does it overcome decades of conviction, habit, and organization, the forces that gave John McCain and Sarah Palin nearly 60 million votes in an election almost designed to give a historic victory to the Democratic Party? The truth is that, even under the best scenario for Sanders—a growing economy, huge enthusiasm, and a weak opponent—it’s hard to imagine a world where he beats Obama’s total from 2008. Unless the revolution is truly that—a movement that overcomes partisan barriers—it, at most, leaves liberals where they were at the beginning of 2013.

President-elect Sanders would enter the White House with gridlock ahead of him. And if the conservatism and moderation of places like Virginia and Missouri are any indication, then he would also face a split in the Democratic Party, among lawmakers who backed him and his socialist label, and those who ran from it. His campaign promises to challenge the establishment. Would these moderate and conservative Democrats challenge the establishment too? If they don’t, would Sanders challenge them?

[highprincipleswork]

63. You know, you are just arguing for getting him in there, as far as I can see.

[Gothmog]

66. Sanders will not be the nominee unless the millions and millions of new voters show up

Sanders' revolution has been a flop which is why he is trailing by 2.4 million votes. The only way for sanders to overcome that deficit is to win New York by double digits. Then sanders has to win out in the rest of the states by double digits.

Without his revolution coming through in the real world, then Sanders will not be the nominee

[highprincipleswork]

69. I people would get out of hysteria and brainwashing and vote their principles, it would be done.

If you point is that "it may not happen", then you are right.

But the article you post cites that even if Bernie wins the White House and the Senate, he will have a hard time with an entrenched Republican House. Well, even the House can be changed, and yes, even with "gerrymandering", scary.

Where there is a will, there is a way, where enough peoples stand up, things can be accomplished politically. Bernie is not and has never promised to do this all himself. When enough people stand up together, this can be done.

Meanwhile, so many Democrats vote for the "safe" bet Hillary, which is not safe at all, unless you want more of the same.

Jimmy Dore makes a good point in saying that the more Democrats veer to the Right, over decades and decades of Reaganesque phallic worship, the more the Republicans go further Right, till we can all pretty much agree they are in the territory of "batshit crazy". But it is our own Democratic politicians that are enabling them!!!!

Yes, Bernie would stop this trend and stand firmly against it. That would be an enormously yuuuuuuuge, good thing. And I mean it would he even if virtually nothing got done in Congress for a period of time.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

61. I don't see it either at present

Here are the realities that I see at present:

Bernie is seriously behind in pledged delegates and needs massive blowouts in the remaining contests. Hillary is more likely than not going to be the Democratic nominee.

Either Bernie or Hillary is likely to beat whatever Republican they ultimately decide upon in the GE.

The US Senate may go Democratic if everything goes well for us in November. Republicans have a LOT of seats to defend and the ones in blue states are vulnerable, particularly if the Senate obstructionism over replacing Scalia continues.

The House will *probably* remain Republican for the foreseeable future- until we can defeat/undermine massive Republican gerrymandering.

Republicans currently control the majority of governorships and have massive majorities in many state legislatures. No evidence that this is suddenly going to change after November.

This is not what a "revolutionary" election looks like but seems more like what we are headed for IMHO. Best we can IMHO is to start/keep organizing at the local and state levels and work tirelessly to get more Democrats and progressives into elected office and build the infrastructure to really make progressive progress at the national level.

[messiah]

62. OP is an

example of George W. Bush conservatives within the democratic party.

[NurseJackie]

64. This is a brilliant piece. Thanks for posting it.

[DrDan]

65. of course it is not real - it was a tactic to get the vote of a specific demographic

and the error in logic is that this demographic notoriously does not show up and vote.

[Gothmog]

67. It is also a tool for Sanders to make unrealistic proposals that can not be passed in the real world

[DrDan]

68. excellent point - justification for bills that have no chance of being passed

[bobbobbins01]

70. Anyone who says this hasn't been paying attention.

Its been said a 1000 times before, but the revolution will not be televised. DemocracySpring, the fight for 15, yesterdays march in NYC, the event at Washington Square Park. Its happening, and the media and the rest of the powers that be are doing their best to squash it.

[OwlinAZ]

82. It is obvious and we should expect

corporate efforts to silence it will continue.
Powerful interests never give up their influence by their own free will...never

[Gothmog]

71. Bernie’s Failed Revolution

The Sanders revolution has been a bust http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-new-york-primary-213829

And yet, the “revolution” that Sanders called for didn’t show up. Clinton’s 16-point New York win is simply the exclamation point. First, electorally, Sanders hasn’t been able to win any states on Clinton’s natural turf, while she picked off states like blue-collar Ohio and quintessentially liberal Massachusetts. Eleven of his 16 state wins were in low-turnout caucus states, while she has dominated well-populated primary states. He struggled to win the votes of older voters and whiffed with Southern African-Americans.
Story Continued Below

But on a more important level, Sanders has also failed to substantially change the Democratic Party at its core: its acceptance of big-dollar fundraising and incremental policy advancement. That was a tough task for Sanders, especially considering he had steered clear of the party for most of his political career until his presidential quest (prompting Hillary to remark at one point, “I’m not even sure he is a Democrat”). For all his success at the polls, Sanders’ ideologically pure campaign foundered on the predictable shoals of policy specifics and political feasibility, obstacles that a progressive populist movement will need to overcome to truly succeed.....

Another Sanders misstep was making his campaign look like a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party apparatus—a great strategy for winning left-leaning independents but not so much for the larger pool of registered Democrats.

In January, he downplayed Clinton endorsements from Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Human Rights Campaign as coming from “the establishment.” In a fundraiser email in support of a candidate running in a Nevada House primary, he took a gratuitous swipe at EMILY’s List, a major funder of female Democrats. And instead of working with the Democratic National Committee to raise money for a wider range of congressional candidates, the Sanders campaign attacked Hillary Clinton for doing so at a big-dollar fundraiser hosted by George Clooney.

The cost was a smooth-talking smackdown from Clooney on Sunday on NBC’s Meet The Press: “we need to take the Senate back, because we need … that fifth vote on the Supreme Court [to] overturn Citizens United and get this obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I never have to do a fundraiser again.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-new-york-primary-213829#ixzz46asWEZ2w
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Gothmog]

72. Bernie Sanders just accidentally explained why his political revolution has failed

Bernie Sanders just admitted that his so-called revolution is a failure. Sanders was unable to motivate and get poor people to vote which doomed his so-called revolution http://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote

The point of the "political revolution" was that Sanders would change who was turning out to vote

The problem with Sanders saying he's losing because "poor people don't vote," though, is that this wasn't a sad truth that he and his campaign discovered over the last several weeks. It — or rather, the possibility of fixing it — was at the core of his entire theory of winning.

Sanders isn't just running on his policy agenda. He's running on the idea of a "political revolution" that will allow him to accomplish that agenda. The theory of the "political revolution" is that Americans are so eager for free college and Medicare for all that they will not only sweep Bernie Sanders to the White House if he's nominated, but will elect more, and more progressive, Democrats down-ballot will then vote to pass Sanders's agenda through Congress.

Among people who typically vote, these policies aren't that popular. The "political revolution" is only plausible if it's about changing the composition of the electorate: bringing new people to the polls who don't normally vote, even in presidential elections.

But on those grounds, the "political revolution" theory is quite plausible. As Vox's Dylan Matthews pointed out earlier this month, 30 percent of eligible voters aren't registered to vote, or aren't accurately listed in the voter databases that campaigns use. Those voters are basically ignored by candidates. And, just like the nonvoting population as a whole, they're more likely to be poor than voters are — and more likely to support liberal policies on government spending.

A candidate who can figure out how to reach out to that 30 percent of voters could actually make a political revolution happen — or, at least, bring the median American voter to the left.

Bernie Sanders isn't the candidate who can make the "political revolution" happen

It's hard to mobilize that 30 percent of could-be voters, though. And it's pretty clear, at this point, that Sanders hasn't pulled it off.

Sanders hasn't been pulling in remarkable numbers of first-time primary voters. His base looks a lot like the existing progressive wing of the Democratic Party — the people who voted for Howard Dean over John Kerry and Bill Bradley over Al Gore.

The premise of Sanders' so-called revolution is that he would be able to motivate millions and millions of new voters which Sanders has failed to do.

[Gothmog]

73. Kevin Drum-Here's Why I Never Warmed Up to Bernie Sanders

Sanders revolution was a bust and was never going to happen and the attacks of the Sanders followers on incrementialism were really sad and silly http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie-sanders

Bernie's explanation for everything he wants to do—his theory of change, or theory of governing, take your pick—is that we need a revolution in this country. The rich own everything. Income inequality is skyrocketing. The middle class is stagnating. The finance industry is out of control. Washington, DC, is paralyzed.....

Like it or not, you don't build a revolution on top of an economy like this. Period. If you want to get anything done, you're going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through the slow boring of hard wood.

Why do I care about this? Because if you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loaves—all the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment. In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that's never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable young followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to the slow boring of hard wood? Or do they give up?

I don't know, but my fear is that some of them will do the latter. And that's a damn shame. They've been conned by a guy who should know better, the same way dieters get conned by late-night miracle diets. When it doesn't work, they throw in the towel.

Most likely Bernie will have no lasting effect, and his followers will scatter in the usual way, with some doubling down on practical politics and others leaving for different callings. But there's a decent chance that Bernie's failure will result in a net increase of cynicism about politics, and that's the last thing we need. I hate the idea that we might lose even a few talented future leaders because they fell for Bernie's spiel and then got discouraged when it didn't pan out.

I'll grant that my pitch—and Hillary's and Barack Obama's—isn't very inspiring. Work your fingers to the bone for 30 years and you might get one or two significant pieces of legislation passed. Obviously you need inspiration too. But if you don't want your followers to give up in disgust, your inspiration needs to be in the service of goals that are at least attainable. By offering a chimera instead, Bernie has done the progressive movement no favors.

Sanders revolution was the cheap and sad way to get things done. In the real world one has to work hard to implement change but Sanders was not up to that task. Instead of actually getting things done, Sanders promised a magical revolution where major changes could be accomplished by magic and not by hard work.

Politics is hard work and relying on a magical revolution to change things does not work. I like living in the real world and I know that change involves hard work

[PowerToThePeople]

75. ROFL

[killbotfactory]

77. Yes, it's real easy to bump heads with the most powerful democratic political machine.

Obama barely won in 2008.

That Sanders has done as well as he has is pretty amazing.

[Gothmog]

86. That election was not close at all

[Scurrilous]

79. K & R

[ucrdem]

84. But Guccifer!

But servergate!!

But the superdelegates!!!

[Demnorth]

87. Well said,

well documented!

[cali]

89. We don't know yet. Period.

[Armstead]

92. Approximatekly 40 percent is not insignificant

The Democratic Party ignores that at its peril

[Gothmog]

93. Sanders has still failed to produce his so-called revolution

If Sanders really had produced a revolution, then he would be leading in the popular vote

[Armstead]

99. This is not McDonalds

Reform takes time and a lot of ongoing effort. He has pushed that significantly ahead.

If would be helpful if supporters of Clinton actually paid attention to what he and his millions of supporters has achieved and the benefits it can have for the Democratic Party and democracy.

[Gothmog]

106. Read the Drum article cited in post 79

Incremental change works and does not rely on magical revolutions. I want change but I know that it is hard work. I wish that there was a magical wand that could bring about change but I live in the real world. I firmly reject the attack that incremental change is bad in that it is better to get some change than no change at all.

[Armstead]

107. Post 79 is just a K&R...But to respond

I am not opposed to incremental change. In fact, I am somewhat moderate by temperament.

But what does matter is the general direction changes are occurring in. Incremental change is one thing. Steeping backward or sideways is a different matter -- especially when those steps in wrong directions become a trend.

[Gothmog]

109. Sorry-post 73

[Turin_C3PO]

101. The GOP will block anything

a Democrat proposes. That's why they're evil assclowns that need to be defeated from the Presidency on down to the local school boards.

[Gothmog]

117. The premise of the Sanders' campaign is that this revolution would force the GOP to be reasonable

As I understand the theory, Sanders' revolution would need to produce so many new voters that the GOP would be forced to be reasonable. I have my doubts that the GOP will ever be reasonable but it is clear that Sanders has not produced the number of new voters necessary to force the GOP to accept his plan. The premise of the Sanders revolution never made sense to me in that I know how reasonable the GOP is and the only way to really effect change is to retake control of Congress

[Hiraeth]

102. well. fear not: shit is about to get real.

some bubbles will be burst.

[G_j]

108. you wish

they tried to mock the movement against the Vietnam war too. They were wrong.

[dinkytron]

111. Every journey starts with one step... ( I made this quote up myself, pretty good, huh?)