General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSorry, Bernie but the Democrats know whose side they are on and whose side they have always been on
EXCEPT the "Dixicrat" part of the party who became the base of the GOP. We have always been for the working man with our staunch support of unions, fair wages, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Workman's Compensation, Workplace safety, Environmental causes and on and on. I don't know who Bernie was talking about at the Conference yesterday but that same kind of talk help put us where we are today. It pisses me off!
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)I missed something.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)"The Democratic party needs fundamental change. What it needs is to open up its doors to working people, and young people, and older people who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice, Sanders said, according to the Guardian. He added that the party must understand what side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies.
Sanders also talked about Trump winning the election, but argued that it should hardly be considered a victory. I am often asked by the media and others, How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election? My answer is that Trump didnt win the election, the Democratic Party lost the election, he said to a cheering crowd, according to CNN."
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/11/bernie-sanders-says-current-democratic-party-strategy-is-an-absolute-failure-and-slams-trumps-incredible-hypocrisy/
WhiteTara
(31,258 posts)Democrat Party. It is a step up from our opponents on the other side of the aisle.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)But this is not good.
I truly had hope that after the losses in November there would be a reconciliation and we could adopt the good things and focus on beating the republicans in 2018.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)One obvious path to reconciliation is that the more progressive wing of the party just accepts the instruction to STFU about public issues like single-payer health care, and about internal issues like the DNC's conduct. Unity for the sake of unity! Everything is for the best in this best of all possible parties!
Frankly, it sometimes seems to me that many Democrats have no other idea of reconciliation. To them, reconciliation means that everyone who disagrees with them should feign agreement -- group hug, and all will be well.
The alternative (and more sensible path) to reconciliation is the one Bernie is pursuing. We have open and candid discussions about issues, about past failures, about future alternatives, and even about individuals. For example, my guess is that Bernie would be the last person to condemn anyone for criticizing him. His reaction, instead, would be to consider and respond to the criticism. This approach produces some unpleasantness along the way, but it's the only one that will work in the long run.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)to try to improve the Democratic Party? Why? It's disturbing to hear people on here say that. Why should the Democratic Party be beyond any form of criticism? The Republicans have control over most states, and have control over the entire federal government. Being critical of the Democratic Party and figuring out how we can make it better should be priority number 1 IMO. I don't understand why some of you get so upset about it.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)helps no one...everyone has an opinion...and your ideas might be an anathema to others...join the big tent and tolerate those who don't agree with you...work to get your message out within the party...be the change not the critic who stops people from joining or voting for Democrats...with constant Debbie downer talk. I think the Democrats are just fine. I am proud to be a part of this great party who cares for the average person ...not the rich.
sheshe2
(97,506 posts)He and his minions bought this presidency they did not win it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)most of us agree about that, but no use trashing the Democrats because they can't get it. Work to get more liberals, in a sensible way, not by threatening to vote third party or not at all or getting angry because the Democrat that squeaked through in a red state is not in favor of it.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Wow, TIL.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Straw man.
clu
(494 posts)I've been a member of a few internet forums for the past 15+ years. After watching opinions change and people grow - over the span of three election cycles - I was surprised myself. No less than 2-3 honest-to-goodness right-wing conservatives shared the beauty below:
"Well if Obama really had implemented single-payer healthcare, maybe I would respect him." And maybe I was surprised myself how easily this was dropped, without all the debate and hand-wringing we see happen for other issues. Of course it's easy to laugh off the terror that belies the RWNJ opinion. I can only guess that after eight years of bush, they thought Obama could simply steamroll his legislation through congress. Now that I see Trump campaigning after the election, it seems clear to me that a single payer solution was never really on the table.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Don't you know that we have to accept "conservative" lies and smears about us or we don't deserve to win?
lark
(26,073 posts)He totally discounts the Russia hacking/stealing the race and repug voter suppression only because it doesn't fit his desired narrative that we lost the election because it wasn't him running. I really loved Bernie during the primaries, loved his message and policies. Since then, it's all been downhill. He's discounted women to the point that he will support someone who has very anti-women policies. He's seemingly discounted the whole party because they didn't choose him.
Get over it Sanders!
mopinko
(73,698 posts)massages everything so it fits his 'eat the rich' narrative.
why he was given a leadership position in the dnc is anybody's guess.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,951 posts)I mean, ignoring everything else, what does it say that he couldn't beat somebody (for the nomination) who couldn't beat Donald Trump? However, the more we dig into this Trump/Russia situation, the more questions I have about *what* exactly Russia did on behalf of Trump on how accurate the election results actually were, not to mention how successful the GOP was-through various mechanism- of preventing some people from voting. Trump ran the board in all of the key states he needed to win the EC, some of which haven't even gone Red in a long time (i.e. Pennsylvania) and Hillary won the PV by 3 million votes, a not inconsequential margin.
KPN
(17,368 posts)didn't win what should have been a massive slam dunk. Something's got to change. Maybe Trump's presidency will be a sufficient catalyst for flipping voters to/back to D, but I'm kind of nervous about that prospect.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)musette_sf
(10,480 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Are you on Twitter,Facebook or listened to any of his speeches?
He's on fire about it (along with excoriating Rethugs, the AHCA, Sessions, the despicable hate crimes etc etc etc).
He's trying to save the party. There's a section of the Dem party that's intent on discounting the "Bernie" wing.
lark
(26,073 posts)I agree with all the policies he's advanced, it's his seemingly trying to divide the party lately that's turning me off.
lark
(26,073 posts)I was responding to what was said in that speech. I'm glad that at other times he's recognized Russia and Repugs efforts to steal the election, but then why did he turn on Dems and say they lost because they didn't support him, in essence. That's what I'm railing about.
QC
(26,371 posts)And here he is with Rachel Maddow back in 2012:
Sanders calls Trump a 'political coward' over voter suppression report
Sanders: Trump 'delusional' on voter fraud claims
This is pretty good, too:
Link to tweet
QC
(26,371 posts)?t=3m40s
"Mr. President, I am strongly supportive of adding sanctions against Russia to the bill that is scheduled to come up this afternoon. Russia, as I think we all know, actively worked to influence our 2016 presidential election and continues to try and destabilize democracies around the world, including our own, and that is unacceptable."
---------------------------------------
"Robert Muellers appointment as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation is a positive step. I am hopeful that he will help us get to the bottom of the Trump campaigns ties to Russia, including any role the president may have played."
---------------------------------------
"Now more than ever we need a special prosecutor to determine whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Now more than ever we need to make public any recordings from the Oval Office. Now more than ever we need to make sure that the next FBI director is independent of the Trump administration. Now more than ever we need Republican members of Congress to work with us in demanding that Trump be held accountable for his actions."
---------------------------------------
Donald Trumps decision to fire FBI Director James Comey raises serious questions about what his administration is hiding. Why did President Trump fire the person leading the investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and the Russian government? I find it deeply troubling that this decision comes a day after damning testimony by former acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Russias ties to the Trump campaign and just days before Comey was scheduled to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to kill inquiries into Russias involvement in the U.S. election. It is clear that whomever President Trump handpicks to lead the FBI will not be able to objectively carry out this investigation. We need an independent investigation into the Trump campaigns ties to Russia.
----------------------------------
"Millions of Americans are deeply concerned about the possibility that the Trump administration colluded with President Putin and the Russian authoritarian government to win the presidential election. It is deeply disturbing that then-Sen. Jeff Sessions, under oath at a Senate confirmation hearing, falsely denied having met with the Russian ambassador.
"We need a Justice Department that will give us the facts about Russias involvement in the 2016 election and their ties to the Trump campaign, not one led by someone who deliberately misled Congress about his own communications with the Russian government. We also must find out what President Trump knew about meetings involving his campaign and the Russians.
"Attorney General Sessions should resign and a special prosecutor should be appointed to give the American people credible answers about Russias involvement in the U.S. election."
thesquanderer
(13,001 posts)I tend to agree with that. I think this was a winnable election, despite Russia tilting the playing field. After all, Trump was a highly flawed candidate himself, with very high unfavorables and lukewarm support at best from many members of his own party.
G_j
(40,568 posts)it's essentially true, though Trump didn't actually win the popular vote.
thesquanderer
(13,001 posts)I think some Hillary fans who don't like Bernie object to the "Republicans didn't win, Dems lost" idea because they see an implication of "Dems lost because they picked the wrong candidate," and sure, there is a case to be made that Bernie would have been better positioned to win the rust belt states that swung the election. But to me, that's not the point, because Hillary, too, could have won. I think she and the party failed to commit enough resources and sufficiently address the voters in those states. So I don't see this as either a Bernie or a Hillary thing. No matter which way you look at it, the Dem party messed up, i.e. we could have won this election, it was ours to lose, regardless of whether we ran Hillary or Bernie, because of how bad a candidate Trump really was. He was beatable, and should have been beaten.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)We had a candidate who promised to fix trade and deal with jobs. He won't. We also had the Russians and Comey. I object to anyone tearing down the Democratic party period.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)but those votes were concentrated in three states. And in at least one of those states, Wisconsin, the number of votes suppressed due to voter ID was much higher than the margin of Hillary's loss. (Over 200K votes suppressed due to voter ID, and only a 23K margin between them.)
In 2013, AFTER Obama won his second term, the Supreme Court ruled against continuing the protections of the Voting Rights Act after Congress failed to renew it. The votes of millions of voters were suppressed across the country because of this -- through new voter ID laws, the use of the CrossChek system (that discriminates against minorities), and through reduced poll locations and hours. All of these measures were taken to suppress the Democratic vote count and they succeeded.
Also, lower income and working class people voted for Hillary over Trump. The Democrats lost not because their policies didn't appeal to working class people, but because of voter suppression, the Russian propaganda attack, and Comey's two letter bombs.
And despite all that, she won 2.9 million more votes than DT -- just not enough in three key states. And because of the electoral system, she could have won 5 million more votes, even 10 million -- and still lost the Electoral College.
thesquanderer
(13,001 posts)I assume you've seen reports like this one...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-campaign-neglect_us_582cacb0e4b058ce7aa8b861
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)the Voter ID laws? Because they knew they would lose if they didn't stop Dems from voting, and that the Voter ID laws disproportionally affect Democrats.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029190466
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)Unions when Big Ed Schultz was working for him everyday until the Democratic Party left them. Them, like me could give a shit less about gay marriage. I am not opposed but when going down the list of likes/dislikes, so much of the social stuff in very low.
The mass that votes Democratic is fluid and shifts depending on how far the party deviates from previous elections to secure the current one. Its a gamble. In a tight election ear, the party will pull back and only offer safe platforms. Them the election looks good, the older policies can be reignited. Blue Collar workers were ready to leave the Democrats because of non income promises.
Cha
(318,897 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)We also had a bitter primary, the Russians and Comey and we still won the popular vote...this was a perfect trifecta of bad for use...it won't happen again.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)thesquanderer
(13,001 posts)In 2016, 90% of Republican voters voted for Trump, 89% of Dem voters for for Clinton.
In 2012, 93% of Republican voters voted for Romney, 92% of Dem voters for for Obama.
The non-affiliated are the biggest swing.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)And the result is a Trump presidency...
thesquanderer
(13,001 posts)Did you doubt the numbers I posted? Here's the source:
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)thesquanderer
(13,001 posts)Some of each "never came home" but I don't see any evidence that it affected Dems more.
Do you have any poll data to support your position? Or is it just a gut feeling?
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
onit2day
(1,201 posts)Wall Street lobbyists as the means of financing the party. He pounds on the idea of income inequality which Jimmy Carter agrees and also emphasizes. Plus how many...oh Carter said it's 7 out of a thousand are in prison now. Democrats except for the progressive democrats have been slow to push for an overhaul of the prison system and the laws imprisoning people. slow to push for income equality except for progressives like Elizabeth Warren who also supports everything Bernie Sanders has been saying.
Our last convention refused admission to after hours meetings and parties to those not invited by Banksters and Wall street lobbyists. The party has been losing elections it should be winning and the way to do that is to return to FDR democrats. Johnson Democrats and not DLC corporate democrats. Bernie knows what he's talking about and for those who listened our new platform was written.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)In today's world, few people could declare bankruptcy and even when they can student loans are exempt. It was particularly bitter pill after the 2008 crash.
I can see how it may have seemed like a good idea to place such limits in a great economy with monied interests making big donations to the party. And, it was a time when students had opportunities. But the Dems should have considered all possibilities before putting fundraising ahead of the possible unintended consequences that bankruptcy and welfare "reform" might have on people if the economy didn't always measure up their hopes and dreams. Or, what it would mean to households when incomes were reduced as contributors went to prison.
I don't know what could have or should have been done, but it turned out to be a sacrifice of the futures of people in the interest of fundraising and "winning."
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)That he actually helped influence..
It covers every damn thing he's claiming the party needs to change on.
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
Really.. EVERY single one of his criticisms are on there!!!
FFS, I keep wanting to let the past go, and move on, but his mouth keeps spinning it back up. Who's side is he really on??
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)we have so many Democrats who refuse to follow parts of it? Having a party platform such as this is not enough by itself. I care more about party members' votes and actions than words in a party platform.
sheshe2
(97,506 posts)Also please tell us which parts Dems are refusing to follow. TIA
Your words....
>>>we have so many Democrats who refuse to follow parts of it? Having a party platform such as this is not enough by itself. I care more about party members' votes and actions than words in a party platform. <<<
IndianaKev
(8 posts)But the top of the Democratic Party is not always representing the average middle class American. If we fight solely for party politics, we will lose. We can admonish Bernie for refusing to call himself a Democrat or we can embrace a growing part of the party that does call themselves a Democrat that happens to agree with Bernie.
We have a two party system here in our United States. That's been here and debated since our modern birth. There are folks that have always been a Democrat in our party then there are folks like me who have realized operating inside our system is better than being an outsider. I feel that we need to embrace these folks and understand that we are the party of thought and science and debate. This exclusive party politics nonsense will leave this current president in power for 4 years longer and who wants that?
Bernie attacks the economic royalists that exist in our party; he does not attack those of us fighting for a strong middle class. I know the OP is probably a troll trying to divide but I can't believe that all of these posters are as well. Don't take the bait. Let's stay focused. We know what the task at hand is going to take. In Solidarity.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)is the Democratic Party top and bottom. I do not believe Democrats embrace Sen. Sanders message of Democrats bad...Trump voters good. And those who do won't vote Democratic. The leaders need to grow a pair and tell him to stop criticizing Democrats.
ecstatic
(35,073 posts)people in our current coalition don't have jobs or work?
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)I think some who voted for Trump are racists, and I don't want to change our party to cater to them.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Us older people were mentioned only in passing in the DNC platform, which was altered to appease Bernie and his followers. yeah, I've had this conversation with other "older people" that are registered Democrats, and they all felt the same.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Older folks are reliable voters...I hope Sen. Sanders does not run in 20.
Cha
(318,897 posts)Hillary got the workers' votes.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Cha
(318,897 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Trump supporters who could vote in open primary states. Sen. Sanders must know fewer Democrats would vote for him in 20 and is looking for support. I can't really see him running as a Democrat in 20, but who knows?
sheshe2
(97,506 posts)trueblue2007
(19,239 posts)AND I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS comment of Bernies either. I believe Trump colluded with the Russians and that Comey's actions killed her chances of winning.
Sanders also talked about Trump winning the election, but argued that it should hardly be considered a victory. I am often asked by the media and others, How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election? My answer is that Trump didnt win the election, the Democratic Party lost the election, he said to a cheering crowd, according to CNN."
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/11/bernie-sanders-says-current-democratic-party-strategy-is-an-absolute-failure-and-slams-trumps-incredible-hypocrisy/
katmondoo
(6,524 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,504 posts)I'm all for constructive criticism, but it's a lot more valid when it's not coming from a guy who joined the party only to benefit from its infrastructure to run for President, and who then switched back to independent the first chance he got.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Never complained when the Vermont Democratic Party overlooked progressive Democratic candidates of color and backed him instead. Nope. Never called the party establishment or corrupt when they were in his corner. God forbid there might have been a little more support last year for a candidate that has worked for the party her entire life. The party he only joined temporarily for the money and media. Nope, if it ain't in the bag for him, then it's corrupt and an "absolute failure".
Doremus
(7,273 posts)We sometimes forget how much the party has depended on his votes. He has probably voted Dem more often than some Dems.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,682 posts)Great point!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I sincerely doubt that.
Doremus
(7,273 posts)but I wonder where he would stand
List of members of 114th Congress who voted against their party the most
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/here-are-the-members-of-congress-who-vote-against-their-party-the-most/?utm_term=.cc2d3be3d5b2
Joe Manchin of WV voted against the party over 25% of the time, followed by 9 other Democratic senators. I'm sure there's data out there that shows how Bernie compares but I have no time to look right now and I'm mucking it up royally now as it is.
Edited for accuracy
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 13, 2017, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)
I was talking voters.
But as for the list, why would Bernie ever appear on a list of Democratic reps? He's not a Democrat.
Do you have a list of his votes against Democratic legislation?
Doremus
(7,273 posts)It kind of makes no sense in context to think I was referring to his individual vote at the election polls..?
Anyway, I know I've seen charts that show how Bernie stands in terms of his Dem party loyalty but heck if I can put my finger on them right now. Maybe someone with more time/better Google skills will come to our aid. IIRC, his record is better than some of the centrists.
In any event, we all need to stop the infighting. It's destructive and dispiriting. We Dems have much more in common with each other than differences and that's what we need to concentrate on if we're ever going to make any progress.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Not seeing the word Legislator here.
Doremus
(7,273 posts)which is a matter of public record, vs. their personal vote at their neighborhood precinct, which obviously is not a matter of public record, and arguably a matter of far less importance.
Very silly argument that neither of us has time for, I'm sure.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I also thought, because Bernie has stated that he didn't vote in elections for some years, that someone might be referring to that.
Doremus
(7,273 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Doremus
(7,273 posts)You may have the last word. With all that's happened in the country today grown adults should have better things to do than play the mental equivalent of a toddlers' game. I know I do.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Red Herring
Ignoratio elenchi
(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation)
Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
sheshe2
(97,506 posts)+1000
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)GhostofFDR
(32 posts)Doesn't make being wrong any better.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Perhaps you have a list of his votes on Democratic bills?
And "some dems" yes, that is a very vague number, so if he voted more times than ANY single Dem legislator with Dems, in his House or Senate career, then that makes the post correct. Now that I understand that the poster meant "Democratic legislators" it is different.
As for voting, I seem to recall that Bernie refused to participate as a voter for some years. I don't have the citation handy, tho.
GhostofFDR
(32 posts)So, what below do you find that he "isn't" Democrat enough for you?
From OntheIssues:
Abortion
○ Lifetime pro-choice record, plus funding for family planning. (Sep 2015)
○ Advocate for family planning and funding for contraceptives. (Sep 2015)
○ Women have the right to choose, regardless of income. (Jun 1997)
● Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
● Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
● Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
● Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
○ Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
○ Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
● Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
● Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
● Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mothers life. (Oct 2003)
○ Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
● Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
● Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
● Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
● Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
○ Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
○ Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals. (Sep 2006)
○ Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
○ Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
○ Require pharmacies to fulfill contraceptive prescriptions. (Jul 2011)
○ Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Nov 2013)
○ Access safe, legal abortion without restrictions. (Jan 2015)
○ Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)
○ Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
○ Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)
Budget & Economy
○ Should top 1/10 of 1% owns as much wealth as the bottom 90%? (Mar 2016)
○ Yes, limit size of government, but address inequality. (Feb 2016)
○ I led the effort against deregulation, but we lost. (Feb 2016)
○ We need a 21st-century Glass-Steagall legislation. (Feb 2016)
○ The greed of the billionaire class is destroying our economy. (Dec 2015)
○ Almost all new wealth goes to the top 1%. (Oct 2015)
○ Economic justice: Address root causes of economic inequality. (Sep 2015)
○ Economic issues take a larger toll on minority groups. (Jun 2015)
○ Break up large banks; add fees for high-risk investments. (Apr 2015)
○ We've transferred trillions from middle class to the top 1%. (Apr 2015)
○ Comprehensive 12-step agenda for moving America forward. (Jan 2015)
○ Dairy price fluctuations help no one but speculators. (Oct 2012)
○ Why did we bail out South Korea? (Dec 2010)
○ Middle class spending $2,200 each to bail out Wall Street. (Oct 2008)
○ Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
○ Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
○ Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
○ Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
○ Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
● Voted NO on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
● More enforcement of mortgage fraud and TARP fraud. (May 2009)
○ Ban abusive credit practices & enhance consumer disclosure. (Feb 2009)
Civil Rights
○ What kind of response would happen if Flint MI were white? (Feb 2016)
○ Combat institutional racism and reform justice system. (Oct 2015)
○ Vermont implemented ENDA 22 years ago; so should feds. (Sep 2015)
○ Black Lives Matter: deal with institutional racism. (Jul 2015)
○ Right to love each other, regardless of sexual orientation. (Jul 2015)
○ Voter ID laws marginalize communities of color. (Jun 2015)
○ Remove Confederate flag from State Houses. (Jun 2015)
○ Equal pay for equal work by women. (Mar 2015)
○ Bushs tracking citizens phone call patterns is illegal. (Jun 2006)
○ 1964: civil rights activist in Congress on Racial Equality. (Jun 1997)
○ Never accept racism, sexism, nor homophobia. (Jun 1997)
○ Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
● Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
● Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
● Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
● Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
● Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
● Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
● Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
○ Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
○ Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
○ Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
○ Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
○ Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)
○ ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009)
○ Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools. (Mar 2011)
○ Endorsed as "preferred" by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women's rights. (Aug 2012)
○ Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Jan 2013)
○ Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools. (Jun 2013)
○ Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
Corporations Regulation
○ Let's create America that works for all, not handful on top. (Dec 2015)
○ If Teddy Roosevelt saw modern banks he'd say "break them up". (Nov 2015)
○ Fix estate tax so mega-rich pay their fair share. (Sep 2015)
○ If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. (May 2015)
○ Worker-owned cooperatives instead of corporate tax breaks. (Mar 2015)
○ Bank bailout was socialism for the rich. (Feb 2015)
○ Americans want change: corporations get rich & people don't. (Sep 2014)
○ Investigate huge dairy processors for anti-trust violations. (Oct 2012)
○ Corporations do not have First Amendment rights. (Dec 2011)
○ Greed is addictive; their sickness hurts country terribly. (Dec 2010)
○ Small banks did just fine during financial crisis. (Dec 2010)
○ Deregulation led to incredible greed of $39B in CEO bonuses. (Oct 2008)
○ Cap deductions for CEO pay; count perks as profit. (Jun 1997)
○ In 1980s, wealthiest 1% got 2/3 of all wealth increases. (Jun 1997)
○ The needs of the rich & large corporations are never ignored. (Jun 1997)
Banking Reform
○ The auto industry bill was really a bailout for Wall Street. (Mar 2016)
○ If we don't break up banks, we'll be bailing them out again. (Feb 2016)
○ Corporate America & Wall Street won't like President Sanders. (Dec 2015)
○ Wall Street will not be in my Cabinet; their model is fraud. (Nov 2015)
○ I'm not part of casino capitalism that wrecked our economy. (Oct 2015)
○ Fraud is the business model of Wall Street. (Oct 2015)
○ Make Wall Street bail out Wall Street; but middle class did. (Oct 2015)
○ Wall Street business model is a fraud & led us to recession. (Aug 2015)
○ Casino-type capitalism causes devastating problems. (Jul 2015)
○ Break up major Wall Street firms. (Mar 2015)
○ Break up the Wall Street giants; they can't be reformed. (Jan 2015)
○ Crooks on Wall Street started Great Recession & got richer. (Nov 2012)
● Regrets vote to deregulate swaps and derivatives. (Apr 2016)
● Stop $31M Pentagon payments for corporate mergers. (Jun 1997)
● Voted NO on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
● Voted NO on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
○ Require Code of Conduct for US corporations abroad. (Aug 2001)
● Rated 14% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
○ Expand lending caps for credit unions to small business. (Mar 2012)
○ Rated 86% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record. (May 2012)
○ Corporate political spending is not free speech. (Mar 2013)
Crime
○ 1990s "super-predator" was racist term and everybody knew it. (Apr 2016)
○ Crime bill had good parts (VAWA) & bad parts (death penalty). (Mar 2016)
○ We need fundamental police reform. (Feb 2016)
○ By 2020, I pledge to have fewer people in jail than China. (Feb 2016)
○ Whites & blacks smoke pot equally, but blacks go to jail. (Feb 2016)
○ Government should not be part of the death penalty. (Feb 2016)
○ Create criminal records for corrupt white collar criminals. (Feb 2016)
○ Involve U.S. Justice Dept. in every police killing. (Jan 2016)
○ Police officers should not be shooting unarmed people. (Dec 2015)
○ Jobs and education, not jails and incarceration. (Dec 2015)
○ America has more people in jail than any country on earth. (Oct 2015)
○ Blacks are disproportionately imprisoned & killed by police. (Sep 2015)
○ Reinstate voting rights to address school-to-prison pipeline. (Sep 2015)
○ Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
○ Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
● Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
○ Voted YES on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
● Voted NO on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
○ Voted YES on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
○ Rated 78% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
○ More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
○ Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)
○ Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program. (Jan 2007)
○ Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance. (Mar 2007)
○ Rated 73% by the NAPO, indicating a moderate stance on police issues. (Dec 2014)
Drugs
○ Pharmaceutical companies are responsible for opioid epidemic. (Jan 2016)
○ Why police records for marijuana but not white collar crime? (Jan 2016)
○ Take marijuana out of the controlled substances list. (Dec 2015)
○ Treat addiction as a disease, not a crime. (Dec 2015)
○ I would vote for recreational marijuana, to reduce jailings. (Oct 2015)
○ War on drugs is a failed policy; treatment over punishment. (Sep 2015)
○ Decriminalize marijuana and study recreational legalization. (Sep 2015)
● Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
● Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
○ Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
○ Exclude industrial hemp from definition of marijuana. (Aug 2012)
○ Exempt industrial hemp from marijuana laws. (Mar 2013)
Education
○ Low income kids deserve free education, including college. (Feb 2016)
○ Student debt is crushing young graduates. (Feb 2016)
○ Tax Wall Street and make public universities free. (Dec 2015)
○ $70B to make public colleges & universities tuition-free. (Nov 2015)
○ Look at college degree like high school diploma 50 years ago. (Nov 2015)
○ 1950s "high school for all" is now "free college for all". (Oct 2015)
○ Free public university tuition, like we had 50 years ago. (Sep 2015)
○ Replace NCLB standardized testing with holistic approach. (Sep 2015)
○ Ok to include mandates and incentives in Common Core. (Sep 2015)
○ Vouchers redirect public education dollar to private schools. (Sep 2015)
○ Charter schools ok if held to public school standards. (Sep 2015)
○ Taught low-income preschoolers through Head Start program. (Sep 2015)
○ Other countries recognize benefits of free college. (May 2015)
○ Do away with fill-in-the-bubble standardized tests. (May 2015)
○ Education begins before age 4 or 5. (May 2015)
○ $18B to fund two years free tuition at state colleges. (Apr 2015)
○ College loan repayment is regressive; refinance & forgive. (Apr 2015)
○ Quality affordable education, from child care to higher ed. (Mar 2015)
○ Make college affordable for everyone. (Jan 2015)
○ Cutting education cuts off our noses to spite our face. (Dec 2010)
○ 170,000 high school grads annually have no funds for college. (Dec 2010)
○ 1976: produced educational filmstrips on New England history. (Jun 1997)
○ Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Oct 2007)
○ Voted YES on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
○ Voted YES on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
● Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
○ Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
● Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
● Voted NO on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
● Voted NO on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
○ Reduce class size to 18 children in grades 1 to 3. (Mar 2001)
○ Rated 83% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
○ $25B to renovate or repair elementary schools. (Sep 2011)
○ Sponsored extending subsidized federal student loan rates until 2015. (Apr 2013)
○ Make employee educational assistance tax-deductible. (Jan 1993)
○ Don't count combat pay against free school lunch. (Mar 2009)
Energy & Oil
○ Need revolution to move away from coal and oil. (Mar 2016)
○ End fracking in the US. (Mar 2016)
○ I oppose fracking; anyone who says it is safe is wrong. (Mar 2016)
○ Climate change partly causes rise of terrorist groups. (Nov 2015)
○ Address climate change so we can leave planet to our kids. (Oct 2015)
○ Climate change is a moral issue: tax on carbon. (Oct 2015)
○ Opposed Keystone Pipeline from day one. (Oct 2015)
○ Combat climate skeptics with overwhelming evidence. (Sep 2015)
○ Keystone pipeline transports the dirtiest fossil fuel. (Sep 2015)
○ Charge companies for carbon emissions; then fund renewables. (Apr 2015)
○ Transform to sustainable system & away from fossil fuels. (Mar 2015)
○ Weatherize millions of homes and buildings. (Jan 2015)
○ Gas tax increases are regressive. (Jun 1997)
● Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
● Voted NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
● Voted NO on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
○ Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
○ Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
○ Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
○ Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
○ Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
○ Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
● Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
● Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
● Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
● Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
○ Voted YES on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
○ Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
○ Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
○ Regulate wholesale electricity & gas prices. (Mar 2001)
○ Preserve Alaska's ANWR instead of drilling it. (Feb 2001)
○ Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
○ Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
○ Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
○ Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
○ Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
○ Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
Environment
○ Climate change will lead to international security crises. (Nov 2015)
○ Advocate of animal welfare and humane treatment. (Sep 2015)
○ Protect important watersheds and wildlife areas. (Sep 2015)
○ GMOs are ok, but only with required labeling. (Sep 2015)
○ Our kids will ask why we made planet less habitable. (Oct 2013)
○ Sophisticated equipment transformed farms to overproduction. (Oct 2012)
○ Very large farms raise questions about animal cruelty. (Oct 2012)
○ Cut subsidies of wealthy farmers; increase grazing fees. (Jun 1997)
○ City residents often frozen out of development decisions. (Jun 1997)
○ Voted YES on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013)
○ Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Aug 2009)
● Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
○ Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
○ Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
● Voted NO on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
● Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
○ Prohibits commercial logging on Federal public lands. (Apr 2001)
○ Rated 90% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
○ Promote conservation of rare felids & canids. (Mar 2007)
○ Make tax deduction permanent for conservation easements. (Mar 2009)
○ Regulate all dog breeders down to kennels of 50 dogs. (Feb 2011)
○ Prohibit invasive research on great apes. (Apr 2011)
○ Prohibits breeding or possessing Big Cat species. (Sep 2012)
○ Rated 100% by HSLF, indicating a pro-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012)
○ Require labeling genetically engineered food. (Apr 2013)
○ Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)
Families & Children
○ $1.61 a week for paid family & medical leave. (Dec 2015)
○ Increase payroll tax to guarantee paid family leave. (Oct 2015)
○ We're the only major country without paid family leave. (Oct 2015)
○ LGBTQ values are family values. (Sep 2015)
○ Provide affordable childcare & early pre-K education. (Sep 2015)
○ Violence Against Women Act applies to men and gays, too. (Sep 2015)
○ Real family values means paid family leave & sick time. (Jun 2015)
○ 1972: wrote fictional "satire" about men oppressing women. (May 2015)
○ Parents worry more about kids than themselves, economically. (Dec 2010)
● Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
● Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
○ Member of the Missing & Exploited Children's Caucus. (Jan 2001)
● Rated 7% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record. (Dec 2003)
○ Ban high lead levels in children's toys. (Nov 2005)
○ More funding & services for victims of domestic violence. (Jan 2013)
Foreign Policy
● Opposed Monroe Doctrine interventionism in Latin America. (Mar 2016)
○ Ending embargo with Cuba is right step. (Mar 2016)
○ Vulture capitalists responsible for Puerto Rican debt. (Mar 2016)
○ America stands for hope; we should take Syrian refugees. (Feb 2016)
○ Won't take advice from Henry Kissinger; he assisted genocide. (Feb 2016)
○ Beef up NATO against Russian aggression. (Feb 2016)
○ Key doctrine: We can't do it alone; must work in coalition. (Feb 2016)
○ North Korea is run by nuclear-armed paranoid dictator. (Feb 2016)
○ I worry about Putin in Crimea but worry more about N. Korea. (Feb 2016)
○ Lean on China to deal with North Korea. (Jan 2016)
○ Make Putin regret invading Crimea & the Ukraine. (Oct 2015)
○ Normalize relations with Cuba; & respect their independence. (Sep 2015)
○ Begrudgingly supports NATO, but no eastward expansion. (Sep 2015)
○ Promote democracy in China, but not at expense of US workers. (Sep 2015)
○ US should be more selective about using drone strikes. (Aug 2015)
○ War is a local issue because local youngsters fight and die. (Jun 1997)
Mideast
○ Need to look at consequences of removing dictators. (Feb 2016)
○ We should try and talk to enemies, even Iran. (Feb 2016)
○ Encourage Saudis and Iran to work together, despite distrust. (Feb 2016)
○ Move forward with Iran with relations the long-term goal. (Feb 2016)
○ Normalize relations with Iran even though we disagree. (Jan 2016)
○ Think about what happens AFTER we get rid of dictators. (Dec 2015)
○ Not policeman of the world; focus on ISIS first. (Dec 2015)
○ I do not believe in unilateral action against terrorism. (Dec 2015)
○ Easy to overthrow a dictator but hard to control aftermath. (Dec 2015)
○ Moral responsibility to reach out to Syrian refugees. (Nov 2015)
○ Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar should take charge in Syria. (Oct 2015)
○ Address humanitarian crisis in Syria with allies in region. (Sep 2015)
○ Two-state solution for Israel & Palestine. (Sep 2015)
○ We have to negotiate with others, even Iran. (Aug 2015)
○ Focus on domestic needs instead of international conflict. (Apr 2015)
● Voted NO on cooperating with India as a nuclear power. (Oct 2008)
○ Voted YES on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
● Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
○ Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
○ Voted NO on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
○ Voted YES on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
● Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
○ Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
○ Allow Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000)
○ Member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. (Jan 2001)
○ Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine. (Apr 2001)
○ Urge China to respect religious freedom. (Mar 2001)
○ Impose sanctions and an import ban on Burma. (Oct 2007)
○ Remove African National Congress from terrorist list. (May 2008)
○ Implement Darfur Peace Agreement with UN peacekeeping force. (Feb 2008)
○ Seeds of Peace: promote coexistence in regions of conflict. (Apr 2008)
○ Rated +2 by AAI, indicating pro-Arab pro-Palestine voting record. (May 2012)
○ Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (Apr 2008)
○ Allow travel between the United States and Cuba. (Feb 2009)
Free Trade
○ Don't believe that unfettered trade creates U.S. jobs. (Feb 2016)
○ I disagree with Obama on TPP, but he's done a great job. (Feb 2016)
○ I will take on corporations that take their jobs to China. (Feb 2016)
○ I strongly opposed NAFTA and DOMA from their inception. (Oct 2015)
○ Does not support ANY free trade agreements. (Oct 2015)
○ China trade has led to loss of 3M American jobs so far. (Sep 2015)
Priority of trade deals should be helping American workers. (Sep 2015)
○ Base trade policy on working families, not multinationals. (Jun 2015)
○ Wrong, wrong, wrong that trade deals create jobs here. (Apr 2015)
End disastrous NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China. (Mar 2015)
○ Stop TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (Jan 2015)
○ How can we compete against people who make 23 cents an hour? (Dec 2010)
○ 48,000 US factories shut down under Bush due to trade. (Dec 2010)
○ Disastrous trade policies lead to collapse of middle class. (Dec 2010)
○ US trade policies represent interests of corporate America. (Jun 1997)
○ Agreed with Ross Perot's critique of trade policy. (Jun 1997)
○ NAFTA was a sellout to corporate America. (Jun 1997)
○ NAFTA, GATT, and MFN for China must be repealed. (Jun 1997)
● Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Dec 2007)
● Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
● Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
● Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
● Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
○ Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
● Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
○ Rated 33% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002)
○ Extend trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy. (Jun 2007)
○ Review free trade agreements biennially for rights violation. (Jun 2009)
○ Impose tariffs against countries which manipulate currency. (Feb 2011)
○ Rated 13% by the USAE, indicating support for trade sanctions. (Dec 2012)
○ No MFN for China; condition trade on human rights. (Nov 1999)
Government Reform
○ It's oligarchy when billionaires buy elections. (Mar 2016)
○ Campaign financing is corrupt; no Super PAC for me. (Feb 2016)
○ Dept. of Defense is only agency never to have been audited. (Feb 2016)
○ Establishment candidates are beholden to big money. (Feb 2016)
○ Congress represents the wealthy; they donate to ensure that. (Feb 2016)
○ Litmus test for Supreme Court on Citizens United. (Feb 2016)
○ Overturn Citizens United: America is one person, one vote. (Feb 2016)
○ Presidency isn't winnable with public financing. (Feb 2016)
○ GOP loves voter suppression because it lets them win. (Feb 2016)
○ Citizens United means billionaires donate for THEIR interest. (Oct 2015)
○ Super-PACs pervert the democratic process. (Sep 2015)
○ Public funding of elections to promote even playing field. (Sep 2015)
○ We now have government of, by, and for the billionaires. (Sep 2015)
○ Reinforce voting rights to end voter suppression. (Sep 2015)
○ Constitutional amendment to reverse Citizen United ruling. (Apr 2015)
○ Citizens United opens up the road to oligarchy. (Sep 2014)
○ Underclass see the political deck stacked; and don't vote. (Mar 2014)
○ America struggles between organized people & organized money. (Nov 2012)
○ Best dairy policy is USDA board's supply management. (Oct 2012)
○ Rich people use wealth to elect people to make them richer. (Dec 2010)
○ Introduced Federal Reserve Transparency Act with Ron Paul. (Sep 2010)
○ Low-income workers don't vote because it's irrelevant. (Jun 1997)
○ Competitive bidding saves government money. (Jun 1997)
○ Receives more contributions, but fewer dollars, than GOP. (Jun 1997)
○ Accepts PAC money, but not from special interests. (Jun 1997)
○ Same-day automatic voter registration & 3-day voting. (Jun 1997)
○ Publicly fund elections, or small individual contributions. (Jun 1997)
○ Voted YES on Congressional pay raise. (Jul 2009)
○ Voted YES on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia. (Feb 2009)
○ Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
● Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
● Voted NO on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
● Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
● Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
● Voted NO on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
○ Voted YES on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
● Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
○ Voted YES on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
○ Proportional IRV voting for Electoral College. (Mar 2001)
○ Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
○ Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures. (Jul 2012)
○ Matching fund for small donors, with debate requirements. (Apr 2013)
○ Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers. (Feb 2015)
Gun Control
○ FactCheck: No, never supported by National Rifle Association. (Apr 2016)
○ I have shown courage against NRA on gun issues. (Dec 2015)
○ People have the right to buy guns, with sensible regulations. (Dec 2015)
○ Do more than reverse gun manufacturer immunity. (Nov 2015)
○ I want to shield gun shops from lawsuits, not manufacturers. (Oct 2015)
○ Deal federally with straw-man gun purchasers. (Oct 2015)
○ Bring together rural states & urban states with common sense. (Oct 2015)
○ Common sense, incremental gun control plan. (Oct 2015)
○ 1988: NRA opposed Congressional opponents more than him. (Sep 2015)
○ Ban semiautomatic guns & gun show loophole. (Aug 2015)
○ Instant background checks: no guns for criminals or unstable. (Jul 2015)
○ Guns in Vermont are for hunting; but in L.A. are for killing. (Jul 2015)
○ Gun legislation must work for both rural & urban Americans. (Jun 2015)
○ OpEd: pro-gun votes in line with VT's political norms. (Jun 2015)
○ Mixed approach to gun control vs. gun rights. (Apr 2015)
○ I'm pro-hunting, but no one needs an AK-47 to hunt. (Jun 1997)
○ Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
○ Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
○ Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
○ Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
○ Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
● Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
○ Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)
Health Care
○ For $500 more taxes, everyone gets $5,000 more healthcare. (Feb 2016)
○ US is the only major country without universal health care. (Feb 2016)
○ Other countries cover everyone; why can't we? (Feb 2016)
○ Health care for 29 million more uninsured. (Feb 2016)
○ Medicare for All: insure 29M people beyond ObamaCare. (Jan 2016)
○ Single payer: Increased taxes offset by insurance cuts. (Jan 2016)
○ I helped write ObamaCare; extend it to 29M more uninsured. (Jan 2016)
○ The middle class will pay less with single payer health plan. (Dec 2015)
○ We spend more on care than countries with single-payer. (Dec 2015)
○ Mental health coverage would stop suicides AND homicides. (Oct 2015)
○ Healthcare is a fundamental right in a civilized society. (Sep 2015)
○ Medicare for all: healthcare is a human right. (Sep 2015)
○ Vaccinations work; electing not to vaccinate is dangerous. (Sep 2015)
○ Voted for ObamaCare; but prefers single-payer system. (Apr 2015)
○ U.S. is only major country without guaranteed healthcare. (Apr 2015)
○ Move toward a single-payer system. (Mar 2015)
○ 1972: Pushed for dental care for low-income children. (Jun 1997)
○ Civilized societies provide healthcare for the poor. (Jun 1997)
● Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
○ Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
○ Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
○ Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
● Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
● Voted NO on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare. (Feb 2008)
○ Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
○ Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
● Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
● Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
● Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
○ Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
● Voted NO on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
● Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
● Voted NO on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
● Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
● Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
● Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
○ MEDS Plan: Cover senior Rx under Medicare. (Jan 2001)
○ Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
○ Improve services for people with autism & their families. (Apr 2007)
○ Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
○ Increase funding for occupational & physical therapy. (Apr 2011)
○ Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)
○ Provide for treatment of autism under TRICARE. (Jun 2009)
○ Sponsored bill expanding the National Health Service Corps. (Mar 2009)
○ Collect data on birth defects and present to the public. (Apr 1998)
○ Make health care a right, not a privilege. (Nov 1999)
Homeland Security
○ CIA activities in Iran and Chile led to dictatorships. (Feb 2016)
○ Strengthen the V.A.; don't privatize the V.A. (Feb 2016)
○ It does us no good to NOT talk to adversaries. (Feb 2016)
○ Promise to never privatize V.A. (Feb 2016)
○ We spend billions on nuclear weapons & only 10% on terrorism. (Nov 2015)
○ I opposed Vietnam as conscientious objector. (Oct 2015)
○ Shut down the NSA surveillance program. (Oct 2015)
○ Snowden showed us our civil rights are being undermined. (Oct 2015)
○ PATRIOT Act was 99-1, and I was the one. (Oct 2015)
○ I pushed bill for $15B for veterans' healthcare services. (Oct 2015)
○ Continue using drones and special forces. (Oct 2015)
○ NSA is unconstitutionally out of control. (Sep 2015)
○ Reduce nuclear budget by $100B; end proliferation worldwide. (Sep 2015)
○ Costs of endless war detract from citizens' well-being. (Sep 2015)
○ Worried about invasion of privacy from NSA corporate America. (May 2015)
○ Cut defense by $18B to pay for 55% of all college tuition. (Apr 2015)
○ We need a strong military, but stop wasting tens of billions. (Apr 2015)
○ V.A. doesn't have resources to accommodate 2 million vets. (May 2014)
○ F-35 fighter planes OK at Burlington Airport. (Oct 2012)
○ End nuclear weapons and B-2 bomber production. (Jun 1997)
○ 1991: Billions should improve human life, not destroy it. (Jun 1997)
○ Too much spent on Cold War; and too little spent on ISIS. (Jan 2016)
○ Rid our planet of this barbarous organization called ISIS. (Nov 2015)
○ Don't let released terrorists get back onto the battlefield. (Jun 2014)
○ War in Iraq will cost us $3 trillion including veteran care. (Dec 2010)
○ Pentagon lied about Iraq; expect same for future wars. (Jun 1997)
○ 2009: Voted against closing Gitmo; 2015: supports closing it. (Sep 2015)
○ Oppose outrageous boost in military expenditures. (Jun 1997)
● Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
● Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
○ Voted YES on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
● Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
○ Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
○ Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
● Voted NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
○ Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
● Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
● Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
○ Voted YES on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)
● Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
● Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
○ Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
● Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
● Voted NO on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
○ End the use of anti-personnel mines. (Mar 2001)
○ Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
○ Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11. (Dec 2007)
○ Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and reinstate discharged gays. (Mar 2010)
○ Non-proliferation includes disposing of nuclear materials. (Aug 2014)
○ Address abuses of electronic monitoring in the workplace. (Apr 1993)
○ Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. (Jun 2007)
Immigration
○ I do not support the Minutemen anti-immigrant vigilantes. (Mar 2016)
○ Base policy on uniting families, not dividing families. (Mar 2016)
○ 2007 immigration bill was a bad bill, opposed by many. (Mar 2016)
○ Support Obama's reforms on DAPA and DACA. (Mar 2016)
○ I support children entering for asylum from war-torn areas. (Mar 2016)
○ Focus policy on bringing families together, not deportation. (Feb 2016)
○ 2007: I voted against slavery-like guest worker programs. (Feb 2016)
○ Supports path to citizenship for illegals. (Feb 2016)
○ 2007: No comprehensive reform: guest workers are semi-slaves. (Oct 2015)
○ Comprehensive reform with no border fence & no guest workers. (Sep 2015)
○ Secure borders without building a fence. (Sep 2015)
○ Open borders for guest workers pushes down U.S. worker wages. (Jul 2015)
○ Since NAFTA, Mexican undocumented immigration up 185%. (Jun 2015)
○ Disgraceful to shunt our workers into the shadows. (Jun 2015)
○ Offer path to citizenship; waive deportation for DREAMers. (Apr 2015)
○ Climate change lays groundwork for mass migration. (Oct 2013)
○ Immigrant labor should be treated as valuable, but are not. (Oct 2012)
○ English-Only, based in xenophobia, hurts legal immigrants. (Jun 1997)
○ Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
● Voted NO on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
● Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
○ Voted YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)
● Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
○ Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
● Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
● Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
○ Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)
○ Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Jobs
○ I investigated undocumented farm workers in FL. (Mar 2016)
○ Minority youth more underemployed than others. (Mar 2016)
○ $15 minimum wage might lose some jobs, but it helps many. (Nov 2015)
○ Obama rebuilt jobs; but middle class is disappearing. (Oct 2015)
○ Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. (Mar 2015)
○ Corporate opposition makes union organizing difficult. (Mar 2015)
○ Create worker-owned cooperatives & grow unions. (Jan 2015)
○ Real unemployment is 16%; official unemployment only 9%. (Nov 2012)
○ Extend unemployment benefits whenever jobless rate over 7.2%. (Dec 2010)
○ 1950s manufacturing job created middle class, but not now. (Dec 2010)
○ Unions are freedom of association; but gets you fired. (Jun 2007)
○ Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
○ Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill. (Jun 2008)
● Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)
○ Voted YES on limiting farm subsidies to people earning under $750,000. (Dec 2007)
○ Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
○ Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
● Voted NO on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)
● Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
● Voted NO on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
○ Member of the Congressional Rural Caucus. (Jan 2001)
○ Require full disclosure of outsourced employees. (Feb 2001)
○ Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
○ Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
○ Form unions by card-check instead of secret ballot. (Mar 2009)
○ Raise the minimum wage to $14.10 per hour by 2016. (Jan 2014)
○ Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008)
○ Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue. (Jan 2009)
○ Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)
Principles & Values
○ It is not unrealistic to fight for middle class. (Feb 2016)
○ I walk the walk of progressivism, with no Super PAC. (Feb 2016)
○ I am longest serving Independent but caucus with Dems. (Feb 2016)
○ Too late for establishment politics: we need a revolution. (Feb 2016)
○ Progressives don't have SuperPACs with $15M from Wall Street. (Feb 2016)
○ Agrees with Hillary, but more fervently, on many issues. (Jan 2016)
○ Political revolution: millions of people vs.few billionaires. (Oct 2015)
○ I do not have a Super PAC nor raise money from billionaires. (Oct 2015)
○ Social change cannot occur without mass participation. (Oct 2015)
○ I'm not a capitalist; I'm a democratic socialist. (Oct 2015)
○ What's wrong with modeling U.S. on socialist Scandinavia? (May 2015)
○ Registered Independent; calls himself a democratic socialist. (Apr 2015)
○ My form of democratic socialism is not Communism. (Mar 2014)
○ Corporate interests fund the Tea Party. (Mar 2014)
○ Revolution will not start at "progressive bastion" Harvard. (Jun 1997)
○ GOP convinces middle class to vote for interests of the rich. (Jun 1997)
○ Progressive movement fights for social justice. (Jun 1997)
Past Campaigns
2011: Primary challenge keeps Obama from moving to the right. (Feb 2016)
American people are tired of hearing about Hillary's email. (Oct 2015)
Lost campaigns in 1972, 1974 & 1988 before winning in 1990. (Mar 2014)
Current administration has numbed American outrage. (Jun 2005)
1971: Ran for Vermont Senate seat under Liberty Union Party. (Jun 1997)
First Independent elected to Congress in 40 years. (Jun 1997)
Personal Background
I am very proud to be Jewish; it is much of what I am. (Mar 2016)
My spirituality: we are all in this together. (Feb 2016)
High school athlete: basketball and long-distance runner. (Jan 2016)
Father immigrated to Brooklyn at 17, penniless & no English. (Jan 2016)
Family immigrated from Poland in WWII, escaping Holocaust. (Sep 2015)
Voting Record
Voted with Democratic Party 94.1% of 324 votes. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on confirming of Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court. (Aug 2009)
Religious affiliation: Jewish. (Nov 2000)
Member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (Oct 2001)
Profiled in "Jews in American Politics". (Jan 2001)
Member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (Nov 2007)
Social Security
○ Lift cap on wealthy: at $250,000 program lasts 58 years. (Feb 2016)
○ Criminal to not have COLA increases for seniors. (Oct 2015)
○ Defend against chained CPI, and expand Social Security. (Oct 2015)
○ No cuts; no privatization; even to deal with deficit. (Sep 2015)
○ Raise the Social Security cap on taxable income. (Aug 2015)
○ Strengthen the social safety net, instead of weakening it. (Mar 2015)
○ We must strengthen the social safety net, not weaken it. (Jan 2015)
○ Chairman of the Defend Social Security Caucus. (Jun 2012)
○ Payroll tax holiday diverts revenue from Trust Fund. (Dec 2010)
○ Most successful Federal program in history of our country. (Dec 2010)
○ Despite GOP rhetoric, Social Security is NOT going bankrupt. (Sep 2006)
○ It's regressive to increase taxable Social Security income. (Jun 1997)
● Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007)
● Voted NO on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
● Voted NO on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
○ Voted YES on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
○ Changing Social Security disproportionately affects women. (May 2001)
○ Reject proposals for private saving accounts. (May 2002)
○ Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
○ Reject privatization; don't raise the retirement age. (Aug 2010)
○ Sponsored keeping CPI for benefits instead of lower "Chained CPI". (Apr 2013)
○ Rated 100% by ARA, indicating a pro-Trust Fund stance. (Jan 2013)
Tax Reform
○ End loophole that allows zero taxes via Cayman Islands. (Feb 2016)
○ Wealthiest will pay more but not as much as under Eisenhower. (Nov 2015)
○ Tax increases may affect more than top 1%. (Oct 2015)
○ Increase tax on wealthy; close loopholes for corporations. (Sep 2015)
○ Raise top marginal income tax rate from 39% to over 50%. (Sep 2015)
○ Lower cutoff for estate tax from $5.4M to $3.5M. (Sep 2015)
○ Increase estate tax rates on inheritances over $3.5M. (Jun 2015)
○ Double the capital gains tax for the wealthiest 2%. (Apr 2015)
○ We need a progressive tax system based on ability to pay. (Mar 2015)
○ Real tax reform based on ability to pay. (Jan 2015)
○ Filibustered against Obama-Republican tax deal. (Dec 2010)
○ Capital gains & dividend tax cuts are giveaways to the rich. (Jun 2006)
○ Cap the home mortgage interest deduction at $300,000. (Jun 1997)
○ Property taxes are highly regressive & hurt poor & seniors. (Jun 1997)
○ 1% room-and-meal tax instead of property tax. (Jun 1997)
○ Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (Mar 2008)
● Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset. (Mar 2008)
● Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)
● Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
● Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
● Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
○ Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
● Voted NO on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)
○ Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)
● Voted NO on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
● Voted NO on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
● Voted NO on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
● Voted NO on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"
● Voted NO on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
● Voted NO on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
○ American People's Dividend: Give $300 to every person. (Feb 2001)
○ Rated 28% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
○ Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
○ Minimum tax rate of 30% for those earning over $1 million. (Mar 2012)
Technology
○ Tax wealth stashed in Caymans to rebuild our infrastructure. (Feb 2016)
○ Net Neutrality: no preferential treatment for corporations. (Sep 2015)
○ I support funding NASA, but our planet has to come first. (Sep 2015)
○ Stop bailing out Wall Street & start repairing Main Street. (Mar 2015)
○ $1 trillion investment in infrastructure. (Jan 2015)
○ Invest in infrastructure: My water system is 150 years old. (Dec 2010)
○ Infrastructure does not get better if you ignore it. (Dec 2010)
○ US invests 2.4% on infrastructure; Europe 5% and China 9%. (Dec 2010)
○ Sued cable TV company to pay city for damaging streets. (Jun 1997)
○ Voted YES on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes. (May 2013)
○ Voted YES on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure. (Nov 2007)
○ Voted YES on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
● Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
● Voted NO on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004)
○ Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
● Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)
○ Promote internet via Congressional Internet Caucus. (Jan 2001)
○ Facilitate nationwide 2-1-1 phone line for human services. (Jan 2007)
○ Ensure net neutrality: no corporate-tiered Internet. (Jan 2007)
○ Overturn FCC approval of media consolidation. (Mar 2008)
War & Peace
○ Iraq war led to ISIS creation, as I predicted would happen. (Feb 2016)
○ Qatar is wealthy; needs to get skin in game against ISIS. (Jan 2016)
○ Work with Russia & Iran to get rid of Assad in Syria. (Jan 2016)
○ End perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East. (Dec 2015)
○ Tell Qatar and Saudi Arabia that they must fight ISIS. (Dec 2015)
○ Invasion of Iraq led to ISIS; Hillary voted to invade. (Nov 2015)
○ Form Muslim-led coalition to defeat ISIS. (Nov 2015)
○ Diplomacy and coalition-building before unilateral action. (Oct 2015)
○ Keep U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan. (Oct 2015)
○ Syria is a quagmire within a quagmire; don't get involved. (Oct 2015)
○ Support force only when we are threatened & have coalition. (Oct 2015)
○ Stop ISIS, but only with an international & Arab coalition. (Sep 2015)
○ Iraq war destabilized Mideast; stay out of Mideast quagmire. (Sep 2015)
○ Iran nuke deal is victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling. (Sep 2015)
○ Middle Eastern countries must contribute to fight ISIS. (Aug 2015)
○ Get Saudis & regional powers involved with fighting ISIS. (Oct 2014)
○ Arm the Peshmerga against ISIS, as international effort. (Oct 2014)
○ 1983 war against Nicaragua was illegal and immoral. (Jun 1997)
● 1990: Opposed authorizing all-out war in Kuwait with Iraq. (Jun 1997)
● 1991: instead of Persian Gulf War, spend on America. (Jun 1997)
● I voted against 1st Gulf War, which led to 2nd Gulf War. (Dec 2015)
○ Voted for Afghan War, to capture Osama bin Laden. (Sep 2015)
○ Voted YES on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)
● Voted NO on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
○ Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
● Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
● Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
● Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
○ Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
○ Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
○ Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran. (Oct 2007)
Welfare & Poverty
○ We should not lead the world in childhood poverty. (Oct 2015)
○ Economic inequality & institutional racism exist in parallel. (Sep 2015)
○ Advocate for social benefits of public assistance programs. (Sep 2015)
○ 3.5 million Americans homeless is unacceptable. (Sep 2015)
○ All religions call usury immoral: apply that to credit cards. (Dec 2010)
○ Predatory lending practices caused 2008 recession. (Oct 2008)
○ Economic insecurity is pivotal in how one lives one's life. (Jun 1997)
○ Land Trust: affordable housing by resale below market rates. (Jun 1997)
● Opposed cutting food stamps. (Jun 1997)
○ U.S. has highest income inequality in industrialized world. (Jun 1997)
○ Voted YES on instituting National Service as a new social invention. (Mar 2009)
○ Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
● Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
● Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
● Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
○ Increase the earned income tax credit. (Jan 1993)
○ Fully fund Head Start; Job Corps; and WIC food program. (Apr 1993)
○ Support school breakfast for low-income children. (Mar 2009)
○ Reduce the concentration of wealth & wage inequality. (Nov 1999)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That makes him "not Democrat." He is an Independent that votes on progressive issues. As such, he does not have a platform to identify with or is obligated to follow. Democratic candidates do, which I think is one reason he refuses to be a Democrat.
Do you disagree? Or are you saying that Democrat = Progressive?
94.1% is better than at least one Democratic legislator, yes. So that poster was correct - and as you can see, I at first thought he was talking about Democratic voters.
From my post, "And "some dems" yes, that is a very vague number, so if he voted more times than ANY single Dem legislator with Dems, in his House or Senate career, then that makes the post correct. Now that I understand that the poster meant "Democratic legislators" it is different."
Is that clearer?
If the importance of party affiliations supercede how an elected official votes or their stance on the issues, then you have a warped sense of priorities.
Still waiting to hear from you regarding the list of his stances and votes.
What is on there that you disagree with?
Party affiliation matters to me, and to a lot of voters because it provides a basis for their positions. It's not a "warped view of politics."
Why do you think Bernie suddenly felt the need to run on an established platform? If you can't see that, you have a warped view of his run....
If they start to deviate from the Democratic platform, then that affects the support they will get from Democrats. And that goes a long way to making sure their votes on issues that are determined in the platform agree with the platform. An independent has no such allegiance that would ensure they would deviate on a particular individual legislative vote. Is that clearer?
I never stated that I disagreed with "the stances and votes you listed." Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?
Perhaps you found a sale on straw men.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, endorsed Sanders, a critical move as it meant that no Democrat running against Sanders could expect to receive financial help from the party. Sanders was also endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Democratic National Committee chairman and former Vermont governor Howard Dean."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Elections_2
He certainly didn't decry endorsement from Democratic leadership when it eliminated any opponents to him being funded by the party.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)in the 2016 primary. If I have a criticism of the DNC, it's that that one was a big mistake. Nothing prevented him from running as an Independent, which he actually IS. Except, of course, ego and the fact that he couldn't win. And now he's whining, gesturing, and finger-pointing (ugh!) about the same party.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)The most important criticism to listen to is from Non Democrats. The share of the electorate self identifying as Dems keeps dropping. Why?
Maven
(10,533 posts)That doesn't help our party registration numbers. Maybe?
This problem has been going on for decades.I am a local Democratic official. Participation in the Democratic party has increased since Bernie ran for President.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Look at JPR.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)I'm out there carrying nominating petitions for our candidates for county legislature and County Comptroller this week.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)relentlessly... from the so called alt-left (hate that term) and the right. You want to save our progressive policy...attack Trump not Democrats...not meaning you personally ...generic you.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,682 posts)The Democratic party needs fundamental change. What it needs is to open up its doors to working people, and young people, and older people who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice,
Why is it an attack to look for ways to improve?
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15041-democrats-and-labor-a-tale-of-abuse
The Democratic Partys participation in the recent national sequester cuts is yet another big dent in their love affair with organized labor. But break-ups are often a protracted process. Before a relationship ends there is usually a gradual deterioration based on irreconcilable differences, until the split becomes inevitable. The decades-long marriage of labor unions and the Democratic Party is nearing such a divorce. Labor unions are becoming frustrated as the Democrats flaunt their affair with corporate America and Wall Street.
What are some of the issues driving towards separation? It just seems that no matter how much labor leaders shower the politicians with money and affection, the Democrats just arent returning the love.
Although the Democrats were always a fickle partner, their coldness evolved into aggression under Bill Clinton, who oversaw a slew of anti-worker legislation, most notably NAFTA and welfare reform.
Obama has continued this rightwards trajectory, while portraying himself brilliantly as the lesser evil compared with the more honest anti-union rhetoric of the Republicans. He fulfilled none of his promises to labor in 2008, and essentially ignored all labor issues in his 2012 campaign. Labor leaders misinterpreted Obama as playing hard to get, when in fact the Democratic Party had already moved on.
To prove his fidelity to his new crush, Wall Street, Obama has made it a pet project to target the most powerful union in the country the teachers union for destruction. Obamas innocent-sounding Race to the Top education reform is in actuality an anti-union dismembering of public education, with its promotion of charter schools and its mass closings of public high schools that Obama labels as failing. Bush, Jr.s anti-union No Child Left Behind looks innocent compared to Obamas education reform.
In fact, Obama has overseen the worst environment for organized labor since Ronald Reagan. But the problem is bigger than Obama. Its the entire Democratic Party. For example, Democratic governors across the United States continue to work in tandem with Republicans in weakening public employee unions the last bastion of real strength in the labor movement.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)I can't buy into his purist rhetoric when out of the other side of his mouth he says we should welcome anti-choice candidates and feigns indifference towards actual progressive candidates.
I feel he has been far more damaging than helpful recently. This is of course just my opinion.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,682 posts)He supports them. This one candidate that he supported in spite of this candidates anti-abortion views because he felt he was the best overall candidate even though he was not on the same page as most Democrats on this one issue, is being used to conveniently dismiss Bernie's entire political platform and reputation.
I also think its a little disingenuous for some here to be railing against Bernie who personally is pro choice. because he declines the D in front of his name, yet, presumedly, they would value someone like a Heath Mello over Bernie Sanders, because he does wear the holy D. It makes no sense.
Hey, it may even be a mistake. But I didn't agree with a few of Hillary's actions and connections either yet I still supported her for President. She made a few mistakes including using a private email server for government business. I don't write off her entire reputation because of that mistake.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,682 posts)Or is it that you agree with that approach to labor? And do you agree only because of the D in front of their names?
I find that shite sickening too. So at least we agree on something.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"To prove his fidelity to his new crush, Wall Street, Obama...."
I find it being presented as some sort of factual argument, and not a very biased smear piece, as incorrect.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,682 posts)Yes he could have rephrased some of his sentences. He obviously had a bias. No it wasn't a just-the-facts piece. (But where do you find that these days?) He obviously did not like that Obama was so cozy with the corporate class and his emotions leaked out. That Obama presented himself as a firebrand progressive during his primaries and then hired Goldman Sachs once in office.
But to make the leap to "propaganda" because you don't like the way the information you are hearing is presented is a stretch.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Yes, a President usually comes from a comparatively wealthy, educated, successfully professional background. If you want to equate and damn that as "being cozy with the corporate class" then you aren't going to find many qualified presidential candidates that are qualified.
None of the Kennedys, for example.
Yelling and finger wagging at the wealthy isn't something I require to find a president competent and ready to serve the whole public. I do however expect them to at least be able to sit at the table with all the "classes" of our society.
I never saw Obama as a firebrand. I think that label was pasted onto him by many on the left. You don't organize communities as a firebrand - you reach across divides. A president, by definition must move towards the center (not land in it) in order to function as a president of both left and right.
The activist has a different timeline, measure of success and messaging tools than a politician. That is why some people are far more effective politicians than activists, and vice versa.
Maven
(10,533 posts)Bernie couldn't possibly be part of any problem, ever.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)lapucelle
(21,052 posts)ergo propter hoc framing is that it equally supports the conclusion that participation in the Democratic party has increased since Trump ran for president. Defining "participation" would be helpful as well.
While I'm not a local "official", I have been a local DNC volunteer for the past few decades and am a member of the woman's caucus. We had remarkable participation in our weekend bus trips to a nearby swing state in the run up to the general election. There were both new faces and old.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)Who were not enrolled in any party before that, but who needed to be registered Democrats to vote in our primary for Sanders, who got active in local Democratic Party politics as a result and stayed that way. I realize that some other people became active Democrats for other reasons as you point out.
lapucelle
(21,052 posts)with the Democratic party in order to vote in the Democratic primaries actually remains a Democrat.
KPN
(17,368 posts)It's a decades old problem.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)elleng
(141,926 posts)G_j
(40,568 posts)obviously few here want to hear that. It also might be useful for people to examine the recent election in the U.K. and the power of the "youth" vote in action.
lapucelle
(21,052 posts)It is true, however, that in the UK a greater percentage of young voters bothered to actually show up and cast a ballot.

ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)yesterday...
The Democratic party needs fundamental change. What it needs is to open up its doors to working people, and young people, and older people who are prepared to fight for social and economic justice, Sanders said, according to the Guardian. He added that the party must understand what side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street, or the fossil fuel industry, or the drug companies.
Sanders also talked about Trump winning the election, but argued that it should hardly be considered a victory. I am often asked by the media and others, How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election? My answer is that Trump didnt win the election, the Democratic Party lost the election, he said to a cheering crowd, according to CNN..."
Not feeling the 'bern'.
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/11/bernie-sanders-says-current-democratic-party-strategy-is-an-absolute-failure-and-slams-trumps-incredible-hypocrisy/
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)We have more involvement now than we did before Bernie ran - coming from those who supported him. Look at long term statistics about Party identification.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)YCHDT
(962 posts)Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #19)
SharonClark This message was self-deleted by its author.
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Roughly speaking, Bernie got 13 million votes. Jill Stein got 1 million. Some of Bernie's voters wrote him in in the general election and write-ins aren't always tabulated, and of course we can't tell how many stayed home in disgust. Nevertheless, I think the obvious conclusion is most of Bernie's supporters agreed with him that voting for the Democratic candidate, despite their disagreements with her, was the right thing to do.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)After this, therefor because of this.
A rather popular and most trendy fallacy held onto until a narrative or bias calls for it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)I'm only talking about my own small corner of the woods, that's true, but I literally meet the people who were drawn into the Democratic Party to vote for Bernie (my state has a closed primary) who have stayed active Democrats since that time.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Had they never voted Democratic before Bernie?
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)I think most had voted Democratic before, but not reliably. Uneven participation in general rather than hard core third party types. If a specific Democrat appealed to them enough, or a specific Republican repulsed them enough, they would vote Democratic for that election. The significant change, in my mind, was an increased awareness of the importance of becoming involved in the literal machinery of politics, the process by which potential candidates are identified and promoted to actually become viable. That includes becoming active in politics at a local level. And that led many to involvement in the Democratic Party as the most logical vehicle available to elect people with shared values.
It was breaking the ice for them to become involved in organizing to influence the results within county and state Democratic parties for a Democratic Primary. Some became acclimated to that arena and therefor became more comfortable working within it even after the Presidential nominating process was over. Sanders has consistently called on people to become involved in local politics, even to become candidates.
I am describing a critical subset of Democratic Party activists; the ones who literally flesh out our ability to have a Party infrastructure at the local level. Only a small percentage of Bernie supporters crossed over into that category, but that category is a critical one, and that influx has been important. In my area the Democratic Party has slowly been aging out, literally. Bernie has made the Democratic Party itself, not just voting for a Democrat, relevant again to a younger wave of activists. Their energy in general is making a positive difference for us at a local level.
brush
(61,033 posts)Your insinuation is not accurate.
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)SharonClark
(10,497 posts)SharonClark
(10,497 posts)Response to SharonClark (Reply #31)
David__77 This message was self-deleted by its author.
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)SharonClark
(10,497 posts)Dyedinthewoolliberal
(16,205 posts)I don't view Senator Sander's remarks as some sort of attack on the Democratic Party. I see him as the canary in the coal mine. If the Democratic Party (and I have voted for every candidate since George McGovern) wishes to be relevant going forward, it must move left, move away from corporate backing AND back to people backing.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,682 posts)So many here surrounding the dying canary screaming at it to shut up and go away. Like that is going to help.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Chicken little.
The party is progressive. I believe that the majority of Democrats would not define "back to the people" as walking lockstep with Sanders.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(16,205 posts)If I'm missing the progressive Democratic Party leaders, please tell me who they are. They are not part of the DNC. Face it , Mr. Obama is a centrist and governed from that position. There is nothing inherently bad about that, especially compared to the Republicans. But to say the Democratic Party is progressive is not accurate, in my opinion because leadership lacks those qualities.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)It is primarily administrative. Outside of the process of nominating a presidential candidate, the DNC's role in actually selecting candidates to run on the party ticket is minimal.
I also think that you haven't read the party platform - which is the message of the party on issues. That is the work of party leadership.
The most progressive platform in history. You should read it.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Party. I sincerely hope he does not run in 20.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Except in caucus states, where louder can overtake the actual popular choice.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)SharonClark
(10,497 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And most who don't identify with a party generally vote for candidates of one party most of the time.
And those who identify as Democrats should be the ones that run the party.
seaglass
(8,185 posts)majority of voters in this state. Is there any question that MA is a reliably blue state even though there are more registered unenrolled than as Democrats (and Repubs which have even fewer registered than Dems)?
It has ZERO to do with who people can be counted on voting for, the percentage of truly independent voters (not just in MA) who switch between parties is less than 10%.
People who are left of center but refuse to vote for Democrats do not need to be listened to. They don't understand coalitions or compromise and with a two-party system both are requirements.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)Well, I partially agree with that statement. but I wasn't thinking of those people. The number of people who are left of center but refuse to vote for Democrats is a tiny overall percentage - and compared in importance to many other groups are a pretty low priority for us. There are also people who are fuzzy in their ideology, which includes most Americans actually, who do not reliably vote Democratic (or vote at all) partially because they don't trust that it makes a difference to them. I think they are wrong but think it unwise to simple dismiss them,
LexVegas
(6,959 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Well done. I intend to follow your example going forward.
Maven
(10,533 posts)Which means that Democrats will NEVER do right by him because otherwise, his raison d'etre would evaporate.
Someone said it better in a Twitter thread today. I will try to find it
It is against corporate/billionaire power.
Something almost entirely different.
Response to nikibatts (Original post)
Post removed
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)CentralMass
(16,964 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)musette_sf
(10,480 posts)Getting really tired of Sen Sanders continuing to divide the party...
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)You can have Sanders to run in the Sanders Party but we'll keep Warren, she's a good Democrat.
musette_sf
(10,480 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)mcar
(46,022 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts)... BS continues to excoriate the party that he refuses to join even though said party gave him infrastructure support in the primaries. Where is his focus on GOPutin and their efforts to destroy this democracy?
I'm talking about NOW.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You ask, "Where is {Bernie's} focus on GOPutin and their efforts to destroy this democracy?"
I did a search and didn't even get through the first page of results before I had enough links to make my point. A sampling:
"Sanders: Investigate Trump Ties to Russia" (Bernie press release from his website)
"Bernie Sanders Explains How Trump Favors Putin"
"Bernie Sanders: What does Russia have on Donald Trump?" (subheadline, quoting a Bernie tweet: "'How does it happen that we have a president who has nothing but nice things to say about Mr Putin?'"
Incidentally, you're not alone in criticizing Bernie on the Trump-and-Russia issue. He's also been denounced by "Russia Insider": "Two-Faced Grandpa Issues Twitter Fatwah Against Putin" (subheadline: "Vermont's Eternal Disgrace"
. This site has been described by the BBC as a "pro-Kremlin English-language website".
Hope this helps.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)In every public speech and daily, sometimes several times daily, on Twitter and Facebook.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)sophomoric. Everybody knows there's no there there...
when has money ever corrupted anything?
Me.
(35,454 posts)It wouldn't be on him
R B Garr
(17,982 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)tom_kelly
(1,051 posts)Like this one...
Why Does the Liberal, Democratic Establishment Hate Progressives? Seriously
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029190540
Let's recognize when people are trying to pull us apart.
lsewpershad
(2,620 posts)Democratic leadership has become too centrist.... and has left the working class and poor behind because of their need for big money to stay in power.
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)win? It is so disgusting to see here how people choose to dig the knife of division even deeper. Every plank in our platforms since back in 2000 has been for the working man directly or indirectly.
PatsFan87
(368 posts)when we've been using that strategy and haven't been winning. Shouldn't the proof be in the pudding?
According to OpenSecrets, Hillary raised much more money than Trump (including over 150 million more in Super PAC/outside money) and she did not win. We've lost over 1,000 seats since Obama took office. It's foolish to cling to a failed strategy instead of changing with the times and the political climate. Perhaps a bold message and strong messengers are more important than all the money special interests can fork over?
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)Doug the Dem
(1,297 posts)It's okay to criticize Sanders here???
Greybnk48
(10,721 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 12, 2017, 12:33 PM - Edit history (1)
That's all it takes. Just ask Scott Walker.
oasis
(53,654 posts)All-In
(312 posts)I wish more democrats could understand why.
It's not that complicated.
shenmue
(38,597 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)I guess I'm one of the five percent, as are many of my political friends--and a Shit-ton of people at the Women's march were rocking "I'm with her" signs.
David__77
(24,668 posts)I voted for Sanders in the primary and I voted for Clinton in the general election. There's no contradiction between the two.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)And a better point about the women's march is that it was women from all over the state--not just Seattle.
As I said, I live in Seattle--no denying Sanders was popular within certain demographic and no doubt carried the city. It's also worth noting that Hillary Clinton lost the caucus--and won the primary in Washington state
All-In
(312 posts)For the record.
David__77
(24,668 posts)Certainly, I'd say both candidates were popular in that they received many millions of votes:
Clinton: 16,914,722
Sanders: 13,206,428
My sense is that a number of posters on this site consider Sanders to somehow be in the same category as Trump in terms of being anathema to the Democratic Party. While I don't discourage people from expressing their opinion, I do think it would be great to consider the millions who voted for Sanders, and those who still may view him quite favorably, and are Democratic voters.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)I was just talking to some first time caucusers for Bernie. One thing Sanders did, but get a number of people involved in the political process for the first time. Of those, a certain number are kind of, I don't know, disenchanted with the Democratic Party. I have a few friends who have left it to be involved with grassroots, Bernie inspired action committees. These are not well attended, and tend to be peopled by the conspiracy prone.
I hope we see our way through all this. Bernie is not a political messiah with a halo, and Hillary is not the devil incarnate who laughs at raped young women.
Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #86)
David__77 This message was self-deleted by its author.
All-In
(312 posts)I saw the vote totals from a "red" area of Washington State, and Bernie got 6 times as many Democrats to vote for him as his opponent, a candidate I supported strongly in the general election.
Please for the love of god ask yourselves why for the good of our party.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)And the answer is multi-factorial. Making Hillary the constant go-to for an example for criticism is counter-productive.
StevieM
(10,578 posts)Bernie would still have done very well in a primary though.
In the end, HRC got 55 percent of the national vote, Bernie got 43 percent.
The fake email scandal did a lot of damage to Hillary, including in the primaries.
And, yes, Bernie has a strong base of his own, I will grant you that.
But in the areas where he is most distinct from other Democrats I don't see him as having support on the issues from a majority of the country. Specifically, I don't think he could even come close to getting single payer passed, even if he can get elected as president.
It also seems like Bernie is doubling down on protectionism at a time when the average Democratic voter is moving in the direction of free trade.
All-In
(312 posts)The bigger you are the more free you are.
I (my business) has to compete with Amazon.
I have to buy my merchandise.
My larger competitors have the manufacturers stock their shelves and they pay for it with terms after it sells.
There is no free trade.
That's why big corporations pay no/little income tax.
It's a scam/joke.
And most Democrats are not moving to free trade.
David__77
(24,668 posts)I get that some people are pissed off at Bernie Sanders. Plenty of other people voted for him and have a favorable view of him. That's not to say that I think individuals should withhold their opinion. At the same time, it could well be that that segment of Democratic voters that thinks favorably of Bernie Sanders is a very large one, percentage-wise. I do think that that is something to consider.
shenmue
(38,597 posts)He didn't win the primary.
David__77
(24,668 posts)I do not think that losing an election (primary or general) invalidates an individual.
progressoid
(53,161 posts)Yet nobody seems to be as incensed when she criticized the DNC as "bankrupt" with mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong data.
Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)Nor do I give a flying fuck what that Independent has to say about the Democratic Party.
shenmue
(38,597 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)that such a big progressive gathering like The People's Summit, got a complete ignore from a lot of so-called progressives (that get things done)..
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)And a lot of Democrat bashing. If it hadn't set that particular tone--I would have been first in line to cheer
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)I didn't see any divisiveness - to the contrary.. although I am still trying to find all the video footage available out there.. obviously here is not the place to find it.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)Found this first hit--not impressed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-sanders-peoples-summit-chicago-20170610-story.html
You could try YouTube--I'll take a peak
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)does enjoy it's divide & conquer strategy.. it does tend to work.
I've had more lucks on the twitter.. straight coverage - no editorializing
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Paladin
(32,354 posts)David__77
(24,668 posts)Thankfully, I do not anticipate the DNC or other party entities telling Bernie Sanders to back away.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)And naturally the right loves him...the more we are divided the more they win.
SunSeeker
(58,255 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I get what his views are and criticism is not easy to take, but his routine is getting old.
Bernie needs to put his fire on Trump now.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It deepens the divisions that already exist and it weakens our party.
All-In
(312 posts)There is a reason hundreds of millions of Americans support Bernie, and he is one of the most popular politicians in the country.
Wall Street can't have it all.
Thank you for saying it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)hueymahl
(2,904 posts)Some longtime Democrats need to wake up. The populace is changing. The party risks being stuck in the past.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)progressoid
(53,161 posts)Why Millennials Have Stopped Being (Political) Party People
http://www.newsweek.com/why-millennials-stopped-being-party-people-443201
The Liberal Millennial Revolution:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-liberal-millennial-revolution/470826/
Democrat? Republican? Nope. Youngest voters reject the parties
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-03-21/story/democrat-republican-nope-youngest-voters-reject-parties
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)progressoid
(53,161 posts)I'm sure our strategy of ignoring them should work out great.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)progressoid
(53,161 posts)
?width=960
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)at all.
You can appeal all you can but the youth vote is not reliable.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)(Excerpt) ===================================
I don't know who Bernie was talking about at the Conference
yesterday but that same kind of talk help put us where we
are today. It pisses me off!"
===================================
Yes... you've expressed my feelings exactly. Thank you!
People who denigrate Democrats and the Democratic party aren't helping. It's divisive and hurtful. In my opinion, it actually weakens our party.
hueymahl
(2,904 posts)Personally, I can't think of any recent Democrat that has been more"unfairly blamed and scapegoated" than Sanders.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)people are ready for an anti-austerity message, and a
return to the principles of FDR.
(Corbyn got the highest Labor vote in 30 years - excepting only
one)
The Dem base is more progressive than the leadership
(see NYT article today), which is why they like Bernie.
Through the DLC, the Koch Bros did terrible damage to the
Dem party - and their backers are still in place.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)a platform well to the left of Bernie. In parliamentary
systems, platforms mean much more than they do here.
Are you saying the Labor voters really wanted Rahm?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And that Corbyn only got them to 262, he didn't actually win.
Now personally I think his platform was brilliant but it didn't win the election.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)corporate, Third Way wing - again, similar to Bernie.
From the London Review of Books (an essay) . .
"Corbyn and Labours achievement is immense. Labour is currently projected to win 40 per cent of the vote, a full twelve per cent higher than its share in the 2015 election under Ed Miliband, and the same as when Blair won in 2001, and higher than 2005. So much for Corbyns being unelectable. Hes weathered personal vilification and a sustained campaign of sabotage within the parliamentary party."
Actually, he got more than 40%
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He certainly deserves a great share of the credit as does his manifesto.
But remember he still lost and the only Labour government to win in past 40 years was one headed by a moderate.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)have a candidate for PM they expect and demand support from the Labor left.
But when the Labor Left has a candidate, the "moderates" not only bail, but
work for the defeat of their own candidate.
This tells me that the "moderates" real loyalty is to neo-liberalism,
not their party.
Very similar process in the US
(and thanks for being civil!!)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Now personally I am not against a more liberal leader but I had my doubts about Corbyn. However what happened in Scotland was appalling. The Labour leader in Scotland should be fired for telling Labour voters to vote Tory tactically to beat the SNP.
Parties will have their differences but if the anti-Corbyn wing had been more loyal during the election I think Labour would have won more seats.
All-In
(312 posts)Against the rich and powerful.
He has the right to continue telling the truth.
Sorry if it ruffles some feathers.
musette_sf
(10,480 posts)Emphasis on GUY. Women? Not so much.
All the powerless.
musette_sf
(10,480 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Bingo.
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)musette_sf
(10,480 posts)especially if that non-Democrat keeps touting gestational slavery advocates like Heath Mello. Democratic women are tired of being told, over and over again, year after year, and most recently by non-Democrat Sen Sanders, that (1) the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of HALF OF AMERICA are a "wedge issue" and (2) Planned Parenthood represents "the establishment".

(NB: I am a lifelong Democrat, have been voting for over 40 years, and WAS a supporter of Sen Sanders until midway in the 2016 electoral cycle. I did NOT support then-Sen Clinton's 2008 candidacy, either.)
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Because Bernie has stood up for those issues when they mattered. He wasn't willing to "compromise" on a women's right to their own body. The same can't be said for many other democrats.
I could not care LESS about if he called this cause or that cause a "wedge issue." So long as he at the end of the day he fights for the issues we care about and makes the right votes. Which is why his ratings with NOW/PP/ACLU/ect ratings are all so high.
And while people like Mello do suck, he is still a democrat. Keeping republicans out of office even with DINOs like that will do more good than letting any republican win instead.
Heck, Trump is in office doing immense harm to women's right in large part because of people who refused to vote for Hillary because she wasn't perfect on this issue or that issue. Bernie got that/gets that and that is why he told his supporters to vote for Hillary.
Cause he has always voted with the little people. Male and female and his record proves it.
musette_sf
(10,480 posts)Sen Sanders has set himself up as the national face of progressivism, openly stating that his movement is the future of a party to which he does not belong, and withholding his endorsement from Democratic candidates he believes are not adequately progressive. Yet Sanders has, multiple times, endorsed anti-choice candidates because they otherwise support his purported agenda of "economic justice" - and THIS is what is now part of his "actual record":
Heath Mello
Marcy Kaptur
Tom Perriello
If Sen Sanders believed that reproductive rights were a core progressive value, he would speak as passionately about them as he does about reforming Wall Street. He would make the connection between reproductive rights and womens economic security and include it in his larger message about economic justice.
But just as he steadfastly refuses to join the party he used for his presidential campaign, he steadfastly continues to deprioritize and minimize the defense and protection of the sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights of HALF OF AMERICA, callously characterizing the essential full humanity of HALF OF AMERICA as "identity politics" and "wedge issues".
As a former admirer and supporter of Sen Sanders, I am getting weary of a avowed non-Democrat, who now appears to spend almost all of his airtime scolding the party he refuses to join, trying to muscle his way into an unearned and unwarranted leadership position in the party he refuses to join and does not belong to.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 14, 2017, 01:14 AM - Edit history (1)
But then again, they are Hispanic, so I guess they don't count
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)aka-chmeee
(1,226 posts)If you don't play the game, don't try to make the rules.
Pauldg47
(644 posts)aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)I'm proud to be Democrat, but we've made mistakes.
HenryWallace
(332 posts)"EXCEPT the "Dixicrat" part of the party"...... Without those "Dixicrat(s)," there is a probability that he would have been the Party's nominee...
But your right.... Let's just continue to bask in the light of Democratic Party's recent successes!
Gothmog
(179,571 posts)judy
(1,963 posts)But your post is a perfect example of why the Democratic Party is floundering...
I am a registered Democrat myself, and I am worried that my party (aside from Bernie and the Progressive Caucus in the House) watches the rise of fascism with a "business as usual" attitude, and doesn't stand with working people who are being ripped off by the Trump Mob Family...
Bernie was talking about how hard it was to get the platform you described accepted at the Democratic National Convention in 2016...as for environmental causes, I don't remember HRC ever saying anything about the environment...and Obama was at some point ready to sell us out with a "Grand Bargain"...
Fighting Bernie is the exact opposite way to go to gain support from progressive voters, who are the majority in urban settings. The party needs to embrace him, and open a productive dialog, instead of constantly trashing him as you do Niki. I for one, believe that had he won the primary, he would have won the Presidency.
elleng
(141,926 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,682 posts)I am dismayed and appalled at all the hatred thrown at such a well meaning, hard working progressive stalwart like Bernie Sanders here on this liberal? board. I'm not sure anymore. I always thought Democrats were country first party second. We sure do condemn Republicans as being the opposite enough.
I see no hope for the party if we can't take the best from Obama, Clinton, AND Sanders Warren etc... and not be so damn childish and vindictive which is on full display here.
Maven
(10,533 posts)Which is that you willfully ignore actual Democrats who are talking the talk and walking the walk. Democrats such as
Elizabeth Warren
John Conyers
Adam Schiff
Mark Warner
Al Franken
Maxine Waters
Patrick Leahy
Kristen Gillibrand
Andrew Cuomo
etc. etc.
While Bernie keeps bloviating about how awful the Democratic Party is, these actual Democrats are working day in and day out to stop the orange menace, preserve people's healthcare, increase access to college education, raise the minimum wage, and more.
We literally had a foreign power intervene in our election to install a dictator at the head of our government. What has Mr. Sanders DONE about it? Next to nothing. Zero. Zilch. And you want to talk about people pretending it's "business as usual"???
Then again, when your whole brand is about attacking the Democratic Party as being weak and corrupt, it doesn't behoove you to acknowledge that Democrats, despite their faults, are pushing in the right direction against a litany of outside forces trying to pull the country into fascism using all means necessary, including but not limited to treason against our country.
Open your eyes, and let go of these stupid reductive labels (ZOMG CORPO-DEMS!!!!111!!). I mean, really, HRC said nothing about the environment? Here's an ENTIRE ISSUES PAGE on her website dedicated to climate change. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
Honestly there is so much wrong with your post, but mainly you and the other holdouts you refer to as "progressive voters" (I'm an urban progressive, BTW, and I did not support Bernie, nor did most of my friends) need to GET REAL about the differences between the two sides and what is constructive criticism vs. what is divisive demagoguery. Because there is plenty of the latter on the left as well as the right.
JI7
(93,575 posts)but it's a democratic member of congress, maxine waters who is the one who has been calling for impeachment while Sanders has not and even called on democrats not to politicize the issue and there might be nothing there.
so my issue is with some of the supporters who don't even seem to know what is going on.
judy
(1,963 posts)This battle about Bernie is absurd, and as I said in my original post, it is the symbol of why the Democratic Party has mostly been left in the dust lately.
My "whole brand" (I don't have a brand, BTW...do you?) is not about attacking the Democratic Party as being weak and corrupt. As I said before, I am a registered democrat myself, and I know it means I am on the good side.
What you defend in your post is the same thing that Bernie defends...
He is not perfect, but he is an honest man, I have heard him for years on the Thom Hartmann show, and I always respected his integrity and willingness to work for the average person.
I feel the same about the politicians you name, at least the ones I know...
I voted for HRC, but my problem with her is that she is, and has always been, a hawk. She supported Trump's missile attack on Syria and was one of the first senators to claim September 11th 2001 was an "act of war".
I don't use stupid reductive labels.
I am glad HRC has an entire page dedicated to climate change. It is true that I have never heard her say anything about it during the campaign.
The point of my post was: why can't we all work together, as Bernie did before the Convention by endorsing HRC and helping shape the platform? Why is there such animosity toward Bernie?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)working class for many years, we offer a great platform and when the Democrats was in the majority in Congress we made lots of gains for the working class.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)this. He knows the press covers him becasue if the divisive crap, and he gives them what they want, at the expense of the majority of Dems. He literally can't support Dems without facing boos from his crowd. He's been unsuccessful in attempts to moderate his message, becasue they want blood.
Show us your taxes or go away.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)...

bettyellen
(47,209 posts)False promises.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The DEMOCRATIC candidate for Mayor of Omaha had in the past taken an unduly restrictive view of reproductive rights. Therefore, Bernie's working for that Democrat's election was trumpeted here as evidence of Bernie's misogyny and/or duplicity.
Bernie supported the Democrat even though they disagreed on some issues. He was criticized for that. Now, according to you, he deserves to be criticized whenever he DOESN'T support a Democrat. I guess the only constant is that Bernie Sanders is evil evil evil and any criticism of him is OK.
BTW, last month he worked for a Democrat named Rob Quist. Why don't you criticize all the prominent Democrats who couldn't be bothered to work for the Democrat in that election? Maybe you could start with prominent Democrats who don't currently hold public office and therefore had fewer competing demands on their time.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)He's picking anyone who fights for that one issue -the one percent and giving the side eye to everyone else. That's not unity, it's grandstanding.
elmac
(4,642 posts)to in party bloviating. Its just so unattractive.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)here at DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.
karynnj
(60,956 posts)Just as there are new divides in the Republican party, there are divides in the Democratic party and they are in some ways rooted in the split that happened decades ago.
There was a very public split of the late 1980s and 1990s, between the pro business, pro trade agreements Democratic Leadership Conference against what they thought was the outdated party that they faulted as controlled by the unions and too big government. The leaders of the DLC included their first Presidential nominee, Al Gore, and their first successful President, Bill Clinton. The argument was that the "old" Democratic party could not win a majority.
Now, just as now, there were many politicians that really fit into neither group, some that strongly leaned to one, and some completely in that group. The same is true now. On many of the issues you name, BOTH segments of the party supported them - such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Workman's compensation, OSHA. The biggest difference in recent times is trade policies and protectionism.
Note that like Bernie, I describe this on economic issues only. The reason was that this break did not occur when you look at social issues - both sides supported all civil rights issues. It also did not split cleanly on foreign policy or military policy issues. (Consider that most Democrats voted for new sanctions on Iran - in spite of Rouhani just being elected and Trump clearly trying to lead us into a Sunni/Shia fight on the Sunni side - with Trump calling that fighting terrorism - when most terrorism has come from the Sunnis! Bernie was one of the strongest voices on not doing this, especially on the day Iran was attacked by the SUNNI ISIS terrorists. )
On environmental causes, some of the strongest advocates were among those I would say leaned to the new Democratic side -- and most of the worst Democrats were reluctant to support most environmental issues if they had any opposition from any union. Many of the 14 coal state Democratic Senators who signed a letter were opponents to a climate change bill in 2010, when had they supported it -- the cap and trade bill would have passed and been signed in to law by President Obama. All Democrats, who could be described as new democrats were on board.
I hope that someone emerges with credentials on both sides of this divide. This is NOT a gap that cannot be bridged and - in fact - Obama and his administration was trying to do this. We are whether we like it or not in a global economy. Even Bernie's economic advisor, speaking on VPR spoke of global trade deals making the pie bigger. He then argued that while that was true, it was NOT true that everyone gains. His argument was that some of the gains of the big winners need to be taxed to help the losers. I would imagine that someone could make the case for a trade bill that is linked to a domestic bill that helps those who lose.
I think people who would on a knee jerk basis reject any trade bill need to consider that alternative is NOT that jobs won't move overseas. They will as long as the labor costs are so much lower that the difference is enough that it more than makes up for the shipping costs and management difficulties. Consider that almost all US apparel manufacturing left the US before the trade deals and even after NAFTA continued to go to places like Vietnam and Sri Lanka - which we did not have trade deals with.
For 2020, I hope we have someone who can really speak to and excite both halfs of the party. Bernie is speaking from his heart and his point of view - and I hated every minute of his speaking against TPP and was aghast when Clinton opted to abandon what really was her strongest accomplishment as SoS rather than find a way to defend it in the primaries. The crown jewel of her "pivot to Asia" was TPP. The irony was that her shifting position likely hurt her more than defending it would have.
crosinski
(675 posts)You really helped me understand the divide in the party better, and to see it realistically from this point in time.
I learned something today.
karynnj
(60,956 posts)or "alt left" vs Democrats or other narratives that ignore that on many issues the entire range of Democrats have many many things in common that are NOT spoken about. It reminds me of having a long ago Economics professor say that economists really did agree as much as 80% of issues, but the interesting part was the disagreements - leading to the view that economists agreed on nothing.
It is important to look at what they do have in common -- and using 2016 in a positive way -- it is clear that anyone here could put together a very long list of things they agreed on. On most issues, even when they disagreed, it was mostly on the margins - compared to where the entire Republican party is. If 2016 is to painful, look at 2008, where on issue after issue there was very little difference between any of the three main possibilities.
Where there is an issue is on trade policy. Here, I think that everything that has made manufacturing job less available and diminished the chances of many non college educated people has been blamed on the trade policies. Yet if everyone ended today, it will not bring back jobs that were really lost due to the globalization of the labor market and even more so - automation. I grew up in a lower middle class to middle class northern Indiana town. About half my class went to college; the other half didn't. Many of the girls would did not go to college got jobs as secretaries or clerks in offices, locally or in Chicago. Now, there are fewer mills and anyone my age knows that the large typing pools disappeared and phones are answered by automated systems. Those jobs really are not coming back.
StevieM
(10,578 posts)have abandoned TPP. She could have spoken about modifying it, like she talked about modifying NAFTA in 2008. And I agree that it wound up hurting her, not helping her.
You should check out Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington. He is great on the environment, pro-union, and supports most of our trade agreements.
karynnj
(60,956 posts)There are many many unfair attacks - and that is really something that is only too common among Democrats in the way that someone who loses is treated. I suspect that it is worse for Clinton than average as - unlike say Mondale - people really expected to win.
I suspect that just as it took years for Carter to get the respect and affection he really deserves, but it did happen, the same will happen for Hillary Clinton. Look how Bill Clinton's popularity always seems to rebound. The really tough thing is that whenever she speaks of the election and defends herself, it reopens that discussion. Add to that - she is ASKED about it and likely does not want to change the topic, something I am sure she has the skill to do.
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)Glad I am stuck.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)that have hurt those very groups then. For a long time Democrats have been better than Republicans no doubt, but the record is mixed, and I'll stand in agreement with Senator Warren, that sometimes the Democrats have let these people they are supposed to be fighting for, down.
bdjhawk
(442 posts)(where the conference was held), was his criticism of the Democratic party. Over and over I heard words that said the party was not for working people, young people, older people. What a bunch of BS!! If he was laser focused on criticizing the Republican party that is entirely looking to screw over working people, young people, older people, etc., I would feel much differently about him. Although I ultimately decided to support Hillary in the primary, I appreciated his focus on social programs and the attacks of the Repugs on these programs. Yet the Berniecrats I know were Bernie Bullies during the general and did everything they could to work against Hillary, all the while saying they were for the working class, minorities, etc.
Bottom line, the low info voters are easily swayed and constant criticism and making the Dems look like they are against the actual people they have fought for over many years is what kills our opportunities. The Repugs win despite supporting policies that the majority oppose because they all fall into line to support their candidates. The Dems represent the majority of Americans yet internal fighting among Dems who can't seem to come together and do what is right for the party and country leads to failure.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)or if he acknowledges democratic gains. It just doesn't. Instead, he pines for the days where we nominated folks like McGovern and lost.
At this point, Just let the guy shout into the wind with the solace that he will never be president.
FreeStateDemocrat
(2,654 posts)These types of pronouncements are not beneficial to our party or our country moving forward.
Trump and his dastardly actions should require his full attention. If wants to be effective do in the US Senate by diligently opposing Trump's Machiavellian agenda being carried out the pukes.
His day is done, time to move on and not continue with this outsider crusade to co-opt our party by infusing BoB delusional behavior that helped to create the present disaster.
If he had campaigned against the Republican party instead of running down our eventual candidate during the primaries, we might have won in what turned out to be an historically closing election.
He ain't our Messiah!!!
He's making this a fight for the heart and soul of our party and as loyal Democrat since 1956 I am opposing relinquishing control of our party to an OUTSIDER!!!
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)You are playing right in the hands of the Russians..
treestar
(82,383 posts)get bashed. He likes all of that bashing, which benefits his puppet Donald.
musette_sf
(10,480 posts)Putin likes seeing the Democratic Party infighting of late. Which is instigated by....
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Pointing out where Dems need to improve is not bashing.
Sanders represents the will of the people and a democratic for-the-people
government. That's why Putin/Russia want Sanders bashed - to silence the
most popular statesperson in America...
musette_sf
(10,480 posts)who actually has been proven to represent the will of the people. And it's actually Sec'y Clinton who is being bashed and silenced.

lapucelle
(21,052 posts)when Sanders is criticized?
Couldn't Putin equally love it when the Democratic party is bashed? After all, it did work for Putin in November.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Putin wants to destroy America much like the republicans.
Current democratic leadership and policies aren't working well enough. Constructive
criticism of Dems is needed even if it hard for some to hear with their delicate ears.
lapucelle
(21,052 posts)is that Republicans want to "destroy America", I'll posit that non-affiliated politicians would better serve the American people by lodging their "constructive criticism" towards the GOP.
Mike Nelson
(10,943 posts)...Bernie is bitter about losing the primary. He should be proud of his time as a Democrat and helping Hillary win the vote! The party has the "caucus" system which enabled him to do exceptionally well - and promote progressive ideas. Come back, Bernie, and you'll be on the winning side!
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)who not only knows what side we're on but can recognize that someone who does nothing but attack Democrats probably isn't on our side.
GhostofFDR
(32 posts)Same familiar posters with a bone to pick about Bernie.
I'll say it.
Adapt or lose.
He's was & is the most popular political figure in America. If you can't handle criticism after the unforced blunder of losing to Trump, go sit in the corner and let's get back to the business of electing representatives who are looking out for their constituency 1st and foremost- not the donor class, or corporate interests, or the lobbying efforts.
Time to get off the fix of hiring consultants and the rest to the tune of over a billion dollars and sitting on the sidelines . Of course, some people don't like the idea of rethinking strategy and embracing an economic message. Oh well, refuse and continue to lose.
Everyone should press any candidate running for office to pledge an oath to a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. A firm commitment should be the minimum requirement for endorsement of any candidate. If they don't recognize that money has polluted our democracy and the process then simply refuse to accept voting for them.
If Trump isn't a wake up call that BOTH parties are off course. Seriously, the Republican party is outright punitive if you are poor or a minority. Democrats need to be even more vigilant and centrist policies are half hearted half measures, and will get the same half assed enthusiasm.
The UK elections and Corbyn are a mirror example, and the same idiots in Labour who mocked and chastised Corbyn are the same idiots here to find a way to overlook the Democratic Party leadership's blinders and blunders to launch an attack on Sanders.
Sorry, not sorry. We did it your way last go around. Time for a new captain & charting a new course.
War Is A Racket
(28 posts)There are organized online forces that have been active since GW Bush to divide us and they haven't gone away. People only woke up when it was Russians joining the game, but military contractors and right wing organizations have been doing this for 17 years now and have quite prolific profiles at this point. What amazes me is that people don't analyze what's happening. According to articles this week, US law enforcement was warned in 2014 and 2015 that politicians, journalists, attorneys, judges, generals and analysts were hacked having their microphones and cameras activated on their computers and cell phones in order to gather information on their personal lives to compromise them by the Russians. It's all about blackmail and leverage when bullets and bombs aren't a viable option. Remember Russia was humiliated by us much like Germany felt in the 1920s. Russia is eager to take us down a few notches. But what happened???? US law enforcement essentially ignored all the warnings which are all being written about today. Why??? It's obvious to me...Sources & Methods. They have been using the same tactics mostly in the drug war where they find info illegally through unauthorized wire taps and then use the info to bust marijuana or cocaine shipments in cars across our highways while creating a false path of evidence which is called "parallel reconstruction". This is their biggest tool in the BIG $$$ Drug War and they didn't want any more attention to it. I bet some folks like Booz-Allen or the new Blackwater also have been trying to get leverage here using the same methods and it's why you didn't hear a lot about it until now.
War Is A Racket
(28 posts)Horrified at how people here attack Sanders. Isn't he the most popular politician for most liberals? This reminds me of all the people who hated Obama because he won the primary...imagine if he had lost...smh. Sanders is trying to push the party out of centrism and corporate money and back to the people where it started and belongs. His enemies are well funded and the last thing that needs to happen is people wasting energy going after him which seems to be full time here which frankly is shocking. Which came first Bernie supporters hating establishment democrats or establishment democrats hating Bernie supporters...who cares and lets fight the fight. Yeah Hillary lost and people can bang their heads and look to either blame themselves or someone else but one thing that is for sure is that Bernie didn't have anything to do with losses in the Senate and House of record breaking proportions over the last 8 year period. I blame gerrymandering for many House losses but you can't gerrymander the Senate and that was lost because those in charge of our party lost it for us. When that happens you get fired. It's crazy we aren't as motivated and extreme as the Right because everyone is afraid of them and no one is worried about us. My own personal view is that appealing to the center is a waste of time too because we aren't changing that many minds...getting better turnout is what wins and playing in the middle excites no one. I see some editorials here blaming the far left or Bernie and it's laughable as the people writing those could just as easily be blamed for being so tone deaf or hostile to lose votes.
kcr
(15,522 posts)I don't go to them. Why would anyone do that?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that may be the only way your statement "Isn't he the most popular politician for most liberals?" could be accurate.
"Which came first Bernie supporters hating establishment democrats or establishment democrats hating Bernie supporters." I believe that Bernie promotes a dualistic mindset - if you agree with him, you are right, and if you don't you are ethically suspect. Anyone who doesn't agree with him lockstep is called a "corporatist."
And actually, voter suppression aimed at democrats prevented many who would have voted Democrat for any race from doing so.
Wisconsins Voter-ID Law Suppressed 200,000 Votes in 2016 (Trump Won by 22,748)
https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/
Ignoring that as playing a huge role in the ability to take the Oval Office from Hillary, who got more votes than any presidential candidate from Obama, would be like holding the wrong suspect for trial, while letting the actual offender off the hook.
War Is A Racket
(28 posts)All I'm saying is put the shoe on the other foot and see the same thing. And this site seems dominated by people wasting time looking for any reason to blame Bernie for anything. Im always very suspicious of any type of personality that does that as Ive been tricked or manipulate many times in my life by people like that and they often arent who they say they are. After the primary I was very mad at people who spent their time bashing Bernie instead of Trump. I don't personally know any liberals who didn't vote for Hillary in the general although if you believe people posting here you would think there were hundreds of thousands of them. Many of my friends are environmental activists and the lengths certain entities would go to divide them were almost too hard to believe. I hope thats not happening here as 2018 is looking unsecured still and easily hacked. We all know exit polls are reality...they were almost never off until electronic voting machine and gross vote tabulators were introduced digitally. This is America's dirty little secret and hopefully Democrats get some courage to not care if they sound conspiratorial and challenge the voting system. Being afraid to be called a conspiracy theorist is up there with being afraid to be called liberal or soft on crime or weak on national defense. Who cares what people name call...stick to your principals.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Early voting, and late voting by mail are two reasons for that. There are more:
1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys.
2. Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote. Many of you will recall this happening in 2004, when leaked exit polls suggested that John Kerry would have a much better day than he actually had. But this phenomenon was hardly unique to 2004. In 2000, for instance, exit polls had Al Gore winning states like Alabama and Georgia (!). If you go back and watch The War Room, youll find George Stephanopolous and James Carville gloating over exit polls showing Bill Clinton winning states like Indiana and Texas, which of course he did not win.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/
When Bernie, who is not a Democrat, bashes Democrats, of course members of a group called "Democratic Underground" are going to be angry about that. Don't you think?
War Is A Racket
(28 posts)A few things...Democrats criticize each other and if they can't they we should just go home right now. Yes Bernie is an independent but he caucuses as a Democrat and votes more as one than moderate Democrats often. And we can't have it both ways...we sound like immature children...the same people who always point out that Bernie isn't actually registered as a Democrat regardless of how he votes wouldn't have wanted him to run as an independent for President I hope. That would've actually guaranteed a Trump win instead of having it close. Bernie would never do that but wanted to push in a more progressive direction after our leaders surrendered the House and Senate to the Republicans in embarrassing proportions. The Senate isn't gerrymandered. Republicans cheat but Democrats wouldn't touch the voting machine issue until now. So do we want Bernie voting and caucusing with us or not? He's not allowed to speak up now? Democrats have to defend who they voted for in their primary when it's no one's business? Yes this is democraticunderground.com but after reading online reviews people think it's HillaryClinton.com. Does this not bother people? Didn't we get over this after all the internal Obama bashing in 2008? I remember defending him to democrats who were spreading photos of him in what they said was muslim garb. Divided we fall and some people don't get that and maybe it's evenly divided but here you wouldn't think so. Maybe some people won't comment here anymore. And as far as exit polls I think you proved my point...Texas, Alabama, Georgia and Indiana are all states where they cheated on a massive scale and justified it with religious excuses in the name of a God they bastardize. For decades exit polls were always on as they are in most free countries. Anytime they are off is proof to me cheating is happening.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Yes, this is Democratic Underground, and HRC was our candidate. So if it looked more like hillaryclinton.com than bernissanders.com, that would be logical, don't you think?
Yes, I do believe I proved my point that exit polls are not "reality" as you put it. Absentee ballots and early voting are not tracked by exit polls, even in your "reality."
As for your claim of "democrats who were spreading photos of Obama in what they said was muslim garb" - you didn't see it here.
Would you defend this as "criticism" or call it bashing of democrats?
You dont change the system from within the Democratic Party.
My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.
We have to ask ourselves, Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we dont agree with anything the Democratic Party says?
War Is A Racket
(28 posts)I meant before the primary...by all the comments I've read here and people over-analyzing or relitigating the primary it looks like people here expected people to line up behind Hillary before the primary was finished. But whatever...you ignored my points about Bernie running as a Democrat. According to people here he should've run as an independent because he didn't wear a crown with a big D on it. And criticism is fine...bashing is not you are totally correct but you're analysis is faulty in my opinion because the people being bashed are democrats some people prolifically label as too progressive or left wing. Some people forget they aren't special and they certainly don't own the democratic party which has existed long before they come along. I see this arrogance in many groups in life...always someone who comes along and after a few years think they can dictate to everyone and feel entitled to think they run things or are better than everyone. I see many op-eds here still bashing left wing democrats and blame them for things they should be blaming themselves for. Accountability is hard for childish people but time to be an adult. And nothing is static it's dynamic. People sound like a "love it or leave it" or "move to Russia if you don't like it" type of person when they state that people should either accept what some temporary leadership or outsider wants or join another party. That seems like a great way to get a republican elected. If some far left democrats did that I would politely remind them we are all together or we fall divided. Sorry but most people think the democratic leadership didn't represent the majority of Democrats and it's why we had historic losses in the House and Senate for years. And when that happens people don't get a brand new couch to lay on...they get fired. WE are the Democratic Party...there isn't some mysterious monolith that sends orders from the sky...they're confusing our party with Republicans. Maybe stop getting offended at every little critique and spending all one's time worrying about other Democrats loyalty to a party when we should be asking how much we ourselves care about the others trying to work together with us. If I see another person complain about trolling by trolling my head is gonna explode. I'm not looking back or blaming centrists I was convinced blew it again...we have bigger problems that are downright scary. And we need to fight as a team. I do believe most people did that anyway as I myself don't know a single liberal who didn't vote for Hillary in the general election. It would be asinine, absurd and beyond stupid to try and convince anyone to not vote for Hillary and I pity people too blind or agitated to see that. By the way, exit polling doesn't include provisional or early voting which is a good point. Historically my guess is there weren't as many of those as now. But aren't those categories also usually the most liberal voters anyway? I'd love to see a comprehensive study on this phenomenon. And thank you for your comments...I need to listen more too.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Off-topic, but your lack of paragraph breaks and punctuation makes what you write rather difficult to read - it takes me two or three tries to get your meaning...
" Some people forget they aren't special and they certainly don't own the democratic party which has existed long before they come along." - yes, that is what frustrates me about BS.
"And nothing is static it's dynamic. " - yes, and part of the problem with the 'purists' is that only they can evolve on an issue, but if a candidate is "establishment" like HRC or Ralph Northam, they are incapable of evolving on an issue, even if they are running on the most progressive platform ever.
"Sorry but most people think the democratic leadership didn't represent the majority of Democrats and it's why we had historic losses in the House and Senate for years." What do you mean by "democratic leadership"? The DNC has very little input into who runs for office outside the Presidential elections. Can you specify who you are talking about when you say "Democratic Leader?" Obama? Carter? And don't you think that the very real and widespread voter suppression aimed at Democrats has had a significant effect on elections?
"It would be asinine, absurd and beyond stupid to try and convince anyone to not vote for Hillary and I pity people too blind or agitated to see that." I saw that ALL over the Bernie Sanders FB pages. I saw bots posting "If you must vote for a woman, vote for a REAL woman, Jill Stein" hundreds of times. I know that Bernie's staff was told about this, and the fact that Bernie never addressed it publicly contributed to people in those discussions deciding to vote against Hillary as a protest.
Exit polls are more heavily weighted towards Democrats, those voting for the first time, and low income people.
Here is some information on exit polling:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/upshot/exit-polls-why-they-so-often-mislead.html
"Heres how exit polling works: In most states, Edison conducts phone interviews before Election Day to capture absentee and early voting. Then, on Election Day, they send staff to between 15 and 50 polling places per state, and they ask between 500 and 3,000 voters to fill out questionnaires indicating which candidate they voted for and what issues are important to them. In order to account for those voters who refuse to fill out a questionnaire, exit pollsters have to adjust their survey data. Lenski says that about ***5060 percent refuse to participate.**** When someone says no, the pollster notes the persons rough age, race, and gender. They then weight their data to match the population that voted at that location."
https://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/
War Is A Racket
(28 posts)Handel lost...we gotta lot of work to do...ugh.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)That's how it was before the primaries, during the primaries, and now after the primaries.
Bernie likes to promote the idea that despite not being a Democrat, he is somehow in a
position to lecture to Democrats about what they should do, what they should believe, and how they should act.
He is a classic case of the sore loser who, having failed miserably in his efforts to win the Democratic nomination, has no other response than to blame the party that refused to buy whatever it was he was selling. It's all OUR fault, not his.
No doubt this reply will be "alerted" on by the usual suspects. I will be cited for having maligned a Democrat - despite the fact that Bernie is, by his own admission, NOT a Democrat. But having had several "hides" for pointing out that FACT, I am fully prepared for another.
musette_sf
(10,480 posts)GhostofFDR
(32 posts)Name an issue with which Bernie doesn't align with the Democrats other than corporate money.
He's the most Progressive Senator in Congress, Warren is 2nd.
You're on your high horse, and stuck on labelling people.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)BainsBane
(57,751 posts)It doesn't conform to lists I've seen. I recall his being ranked around 12 on a recent list.
Issues on which he diverges from the progressive wing of the party: immigration, guns, and defense spending, particularly in regard to the F-35, come to mind. He has also voted four times against closing Gitmo. Then there was that pesky vote on the Minutemen.
Aditionally, his votes don't reflect a full scale opposition to corporate money. Corporate, after all, means more than Wall Street. Examples are his vote in favor of immunity for gun corporations, Lockheed Martin (the F-35 again), and the sugar industry.
The votes are a matter of public record. You can look them up yourself on vote smart of similar sites. It is important to do so for any elected official one is considering supporting since campaign rhetoric and voting records don't always align.
GhostofFDR
(32 posts)you should mention it, and I will refer you to :
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9200071
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)And statements aren't votes. In fact, Sanders voted for a number of bills he later denounced. The crime bill and the many bills seeking authorization to close Gitmo are examples.
Every single vote I referenced was accurate. Now, I understand that issues and legislation will never matter when the concern is boosting one man's career, but not all of us see our role as citizens to prop up particular members of the political elite. Some of is actually believe they are elected to represent us and that we have a right and even a responsibility to speak out when they fall short on particular votes or issues. Then there are those who devote themselves to great men, and prefer to sweep aside or bury inconvenient issues because the man will always come before citizens.
It is possible to appreciate 85% of someone's votes and object to 15%. It actually isn't neccessary to pretend someone is perfect to support him.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and in business's pocket. He has, in fact, insisted that from the very first day he entered congress, when he famously terminally offended the then head of the house progressive caucus. Those poor progressives had been excited about getting a new member--until they got an earful from him.
After THAT came Bernie's 94.1% reliably Democrat (notably, the full, corrupt Democratic caucus) voting record, which early on got the people of Vermont to elevate him to the Senate and which has gotten him reelected (to an extremely high, powerful, cushy and coveted position) for a quarter century.
This dissonance between actions and words is one of the things I picked up on very early. Vote with Democrats 94.1% and the rest of the time claim they're all corrupt and need to be replaced with honest people. His colleagues have pointed out that with Bernie no middle ground is possible, no validity to any arguments but his own. You either agree with him or you're wrong. Then he votes with the caucus anyway.
still_one
(98,883 posts)sheshe2
(97,506 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)problem with that one
melman
(7,681 posts)It's not my post.
But calling out bullshit is not an attack, and as the post is still there, perhaps it's you that needs to brunch up on the TOS
sheshe2
(97,506 posts)It is rude, crude and uncivil. And against the rules.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)Obviously not. If it were directed at you, you would consider it a personal attack. Anyone would.
melman
(7,681 posts)And besides it doesn't say 'you are a liar', it says 'you lie'. There is a difference.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)Before the Senate Intelligence committee.
lapucelle
(21,052 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)When you say he's the "most Progressive" I assume that you can quantify that - other than simply listing his voting record absent other progressives.
Because if you don't consider gun safety "progressive" or consider the Sierra Blanca legislation "progressive" then we may have some different definitions.
Proceed.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)What "pisses me off" are those with "blind loyalty" who attack the messenger. What put US where we are today is a failed campaign for an election that should have been an easy win in our column. imo
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it? I hope this is not where the party is headed.
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)alarimer
(17,146 posts)The truth is uncomfortable for a lot of people.
Truth is, the Democrats have NOT always been on the side of the people and I'm not talking historically either. All of those things you mention have in recent decades have not been secure on the part of Democrats. Remember Obama's committee on "reforming" Social Security? How they recommended RAISING the retirement age yet again? Remember Obama's appointment of several figures from Goldman Sachs? How quickly we forget all that.
So go Bernie, I say. We need more of it and louder.
This is not team sports. Our side is not always right and it is important to call them out when they are not. Remember the Bush administration? How critical we were of Democrats who caved time and again on Iraq, on the Patriot Act, etc.? Why is this any different? The Democrats are going to let this health care travesty pass, when they can withhold consent and stop all Senate business until there is a bill we can read and debate.
I'm with Bernie all the way.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 14, 2017, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)
I worked without healthcare for a decade before Obama came along and changed it. Democrats wouldn't touch the issue because of the backlash after the Clinton's tried to reform it.
If you've ever had a health issue and had to play the "I'll only see a doctor if I think I'm going to die" game that I've played, and many other regular working people I know have played, it really didn't feel like the democrats were the party of regular working people during that time. They were just better than the republicans, which is damning with faint praise.
QC
(26,371 posts)and would bring about the destruction of all that is right and good and true.
Now the party supports it.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Leadership is about being able to influence voters to vote for the people you back. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor candidates that he backed lost. African American voters carried the winners. There were 150,000 more Democrats voting than republicans today.
kcr
(15,522 posts)He's still losing and this is the only way he knows how to deal with it. Same as always.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Gothmog
(179,571 posts)The Virginia primary proved this to be true https://politicalwire.com/2017/06/14/black-voters-will-democratic-kingmakers-2020/
Josh Kraushaar: For all the talk about the power of progressives in the Democratic Party, one significant part of the Democratic coalition has been overlooked in the run-up to the next presidential election: African-Americans. Black voters made up at least 20 percent of the Democratic vote in at least 15 states during the 2016 presidential primaries (and comprise that share in three other states without exit polling: Louisiana, New Jersey, and Delaware). Without African-Americans, who gave 76 percent of their vote in the primaries to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders easily could have been the Democratic nominee. Sanders won 49.1 percent of the Democratic white vote to Clintons 48.9 percent.
Black voters have historically rallied behind one Democratic candidate Since 1976, the candidate backed by black voters became the Democratic nominee in seven of the nine contested nomination battles.
Cha
(318,897 posts)like me.. I be they don't need BS telling them how to act.
sheshe2
(97,506 posts)THEY ARE OUR BASE!!!!!
WWC...nope.
Gothmog
(179,571 posts)I agree with this analysis and I firmly believe that remaking the Democratic Party into the image of Sanders is not a way to win elections http://theweek.com/articles/705666/why-bernie-sanders-not-answer-every-election
First of all, there's this obvious point: If that program were the key to success, then Bernie Sanders would be president right now. But he isn't. He did very well in the 2016 Democratic primaries, but Hillary Clinton received 3.7 million more votes than he did. That wasn't because the system was rigged against him, it was because more Democrats wanted her to be their nominee.
And candidates whom Sanders has endorsed haven't shown particular power at the ballot box either, especially in places where the electorate contains ample numbers of Republicans. Sanders campaigned for Montana congressional candidate Rob Quist; he lost by 6 points. In Virginia, Sanders endorsed Tom Perriello's campaign for governor; Perriello got trounced in Tuesday's primary by Ralph Northam, an establishment politician who won precisely because of his deep roots in state politics. Perriello also suffered from his inability to win over enough black voters the party's true base which might sound familiar to Sanders. The Democrats' best chance to pick up a House seat this year comes in Georgia, where Jon Ossoff a moderate candidate Sanders supported only with the greatest reluctance is in a strong position to win in the upcoming runoff.