Why the Democratic establishment fears Bernie Sanders

[kennetha]

It's Bernie's one man revolution! If he has to destroy the party he has never seen fit to actually join to save the country, he will!

Why does the Democratic establishment so dislike Bernie Sanders? Consider this statistic:

Hillary Clinton has raised $26 million for the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties so far this campaign. And Sanders? $1,000.

That’s no typo. Clinton is doing more to boost the party’s 2016 prospects than Sanders by the proportion of 26,000 to 1. (Or greater: That $1,000 “raised” by Sanders was technically provided by the DNC to open a joint fundraising account.)

This is the source of the panic that Sanders causes the much-maligned Democratic elites. It’s not about ideology; it comes from a fear that having Sanders as a nominee will decimate progressive candidates down the ballot — and leave Republicans in control of the House, and state capitals, for another decade or two.

Why the Democratic establishment fears Bernie Sanders

[quantumjunkie]

1. FEEL THE BERN!!

[MaeScott]

21. No we cannot have nice things. Too hard.Republicans

might object.

The DLC has just about consumed its host and Bernie is the vaccine. Is it too late?

[JRLeft]

2. Hillary wants to keep the party corporate.

[kennetha]

12. she just doesn't want it to become

Socialist

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

49. Exactly!

She doesn't want the party to be run FOR the people, and controlled BY the people.

She wants to keep it corporatist. Run by corporations, for corporations.

[kennetha]

50. You're claiming that only Socialists

are "for" the people, now?

Wow.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. I'm certainly claiming that people who want to give corporations more power and protections

THAN people are not 'for the people'.

And I don't see any 'wow' about that, unless you've so bought into the trickle down meme that 'What's good for corporations is good for America'.

[kennetha]

55. there's a lot of middle ground

between socialism and corporatism that you apparently are unwilling to acknowledge.

Do you know that even the Danes, whom Bernie thinks are the wisest people on earth, scoff at the idea that they are socialist.

And that bernie is using language that is SO frozen in the 1970's.

The man hasn't evolved on whit in his thinking.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

59. And Bernie points out he's a Democratic Socialist.

And if you actually sit down and listen to what he wants to DO, you can see that he's not a socialist either. You're just using that language as a red baiting tactic. He might get lazy in his speaking at times and occasionally just say 'socialist', but c'mon, by now you know what he WANTS to do, and you KNOW he doesn't mean what you do by it, so why do you keep harping about 'socialism!'?

[JRLeft]

68. You have no idea what a socialist is, he's not a socialist, he's a democratic socialist.

[earthshine]

3. Sanders will be the best thing to happen for the down ticket. He'll bring the votes. nt

Dana Milbank lost his influence on progressives a long time ago.

[kennetha]

11. dream on!

[earthshine]

73. No dreams for you, eh? Just gross corruption.

Read it and weep. She's just a figurehead for big money interests.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017331184

This is what you like?

[MaeScott]

23. Bernie can usher in that wave election quite well nt

[kennetha]

26. you mean a tidal wave

drawing democrats everywhere in defeat?

I sure hope not.

But then I'm a democrat, not a Sanders-nista.

[w4rma]

4. So, Hillary brings in Goldman Sachs money to the DNC, which she then funnels to her own campaign.

Then she takes credit for "funding" the DNC, when:

"But the states have yet to see a financial windfall. Meanwhile, Clinton’s own campaign has been a major beneficiary, getting an infusion of low-dollar contributions through the committee at a time when rival Bernie Sanders’s army of small donors is helping him close in on her financially. The fund is run by Clinton campaign staff, and its treasurer is Clinton’s chief operating officer."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-fundraising-effort-helps-clinton-find-new-donors-too/2016/02/19/b8535cea-d68f-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1277476

[Thinkingabout]

42. Is it different when Sanders fund raises with Goldman Sachs?

[w4rma]

62. Hillary's "Goldman Handcuffs" -- Yes, that is GS's nickname for her.

Bloomberg Business Week’s John Green:

Yes. Well, we did a Bloomberg news story yesterday, talked to some rich Wall Street bankers, and one of them an ex Goldman Sachs partner said that they actually have a nickname for Hillary Clinton, the fact she’s given so many speeches, made so much money, they refer to it as Hillary’s Goldman handcuffs, which is obviously a reference to Golden handcuffs. And I tweeted that yesterday and liberal Twitter, sort of, went wild. Because, I think it really resonates and gets at that lurking fear that Democratic voters have that maybe Clinton is too close to these Wall Street banks.”
https://grabien.com/story.php?id=48793

For those who do not know what “golden handcuffs” are, here is a definition:

Golden handcuffs, a phrase first recorded in 1976,[1] refers to financial allurements and benefits that have the objective to encourage highly compensated employees to remain within a company instead of moving from company to company (opposite of a golden parachute). Golden handcuffs come in different forms: Employee stock options, which endow only when the employee has been with the company for different years and contractual agreements, that consist of bonuses or other forms of benefits which must be repaid to the company if the employee leaves before the date agreed on.[2] Golden handcuffs are frequently used for jobs that require rare and specialized skills or in a "tight labor market", where jobs are more common than workers. In any case, golden handcuffs are usually very expensive for the company and therefore they are not appreciated by shareholders and directors.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_handcuffs

A lot of insight in a phrase.

Update I: from oldsonofasailor in the comments:

Former Goldman Sachs partner Peter Kiernan is quoted by Bloomberg referring to the speaking fees paid to Hillary Clinton as “Hillary’s Goldman handcuffs.”

https://politicalwire.com/2016/02/16/hillarys-goldman-handcuffs/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/17/1486518/-Hillary-s-Goldman-Handcuffs-Yes-that-is-there-nickname-for-her

[Thinkingabout]

65. Yep, Sanders has those handcuffs also, can't spin this one away.

[w4rma]

69. Wow. The lies you need to tell yourself, Thinkingabout. (nt)

[Thinkingabout]

74. Nope its the tallking points you like to believe, yes Sanders has been

Fund raising with Wall Street firms and one is Goldman Sachs, I am surprised he has not been saying this.

[Divernan]

5. Dem.establishlment recruits & funds primary opponents to progressive Dem. candidates

In Pennsylvania, the DSCC floundered through recruiting a series of conserva-Dems to oppose former US Congressman/retired Navy Admiral Joe Sestak.

He was the Congressman running for US Senate when the powers that be in the Dem. party got Arlen Specter to switch from GOP to Dem, in exchange for the promise the Dems would run him unopposed to continue in the U.S. Senate. Sestak refused to drop out of the primary race, and handily beat Specter in the primary, only to narrowly lose to the GOP candidate by 2 points in the general election in a dismal year for Democrats. The state and national Dems provided Sestak with ZIP financial or any kind of support in that general election because

Wait For It . . . .

They would rather lose to the Republicans than let a progressive, independent Democrat take office.

So the DSCC would rather have a heated, divisive primary than risk a progressive Democrat win a Senate seat.

So after the first 2 candidates the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) recruited to run against Sestak went down in flames (including Allentown mayor Ed Pawlowski), they persuaded Katie McGinty to run. She's never held elected office at any level, and was the appointed, fracking-friendly head of the state's misnamed Dept. of Environmental Protection, whose husband lobbies for Big Fracking.

Think about that- NEVER HELD ELECTIVE OFFICE - never had to answer to the voters - and starting out at the level of the U. S. Senate. Talk about a steep learning curve. But that's perfectly fine with the DSCC & party leadership. She will be their perfect sheep and vote however she's told. And she would never, ever vote against the interests of Big Oil or Big Energy.

Given McGinty's pro-fracking actions/ties to Big Fracking, it is beyond outrageous that she campaigns as an "environmentalist". By entering the primary race, she is also forcing Sestak to spend significant amounts at this stage which would be better used in the general election against the well-funded Republican incumbent.

http://energyjusticesummer.org/candidate-katie-mcginty-the-environmentalist-for-fracking-fact-sheet/
– After DEP, McGinty went to work as Senior Vice President and Managing Director, Strategic Growth at Weston Solutions, Inc., a gas industry consulting firm and member of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, enjoying the revolving door open to regulators among companies they are supposed to oversee. (McGinty’s LinkedIn Profile)

- McGinty more recently has worked for the shale gas industry as a business partner of Ed Rendell’s at Element Partners, which provides investment capital to shale gas industry start-ups. (“Keystone XL Influence Peddling Web Extends into PA Governor’s Race Via Katie McGinty” -DeSmogBlog)

– When McGinty ran for governor in 2014, she hired Mike Mikus to be her campaign manager. Mikus is a V. P. of IES Solutions, an energy consulting firm that represents the Colorado Oil & Gas Association and he is Executive Director for Consumer Energy Alliance’s Mid-Atlantic region which supports drilling on public lands. (http://www.solutions-ies.com/, “CEA Applauds Approval of Marcellus Shale Production on Airport Land by Allegheny County Council” -CEA)

– The gas industry donated $72,500 to Katie McGinty’s gubernatorial campaign in 2013-14. A new study finds a 47% increase in campaign donations from the natural gas industry to Pennsylvania politicians in the 2013-2014 election cycle (over 2011-2012). Lobbying expenditures reached $17.9 million, up $2.1 million from the previous two-year cycle. (“How Gas Drillers Rented Pennsylvania’s Government” – MarcellusMoney.org)

When McGinty served as the top environmental protection chief in 2007, she came under fire after Republicans found out she’d given grants to the group for which her husband consulted — AKA making her man some cash. That kind of stuff doesn’t fly anymore. An Ethics Commission ruled that secretaries shouldn’t have a role in grants that’d make their spouses money. Sort of a mini
Hillary/state department/Clinton Foundation/arms deals scenario.

Anti-fracking activists have some beef with McGinty because she was on a 2011 U.S. energy panel that endorsed fracking and because she opposed a call from the State Democratic Committee in 2012 to halt fracking.

[think]

7. Thank you for posting. The DSCC is obviously corporately corrupted

And not to be trusted....

[kennetha]

10. not much of a democrat are you?

why don't you go find your own party?

[think]

19. Did you even read the post I responded to?

[libtodeath]

6. 26 million to be paid back to wealthy and corporate donars via favorable legislation

It is a evil circle.

[kennetha]

9. not much of a democrat are you?

[libtodeath]

13. You are the one gushing over fat cat donors.

I expect them to give money to the repukes but never thought I would see it defended in the Democratic primary.
If I am not a Democrat then I guess you dont think FDR was one either.

Have you no shame?

[kennetha]

15. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?

...nah.

[libtodeath]

22. Your desperation is showing.

[kennetha]

36. you mistake determination for desperation

Not feeling the Bern.

[kennetha]

8. Now some of the Sanders folks on this board are ready to trash the entire democratic party

See, I was right when I said a couple of weeks ago that Sanders is attempting a hostile takeover of the party.

His true colors are shining through and so are the colors of many of his supporters

Check out this locked thread for some of their confessions:

Sanders supporters fess up -- not democrats at all

He's been hating on the democrats for years, as just one of the two parties of the ruling class

(see: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/sanderss-party-problem/460293/)


I know, I know he's caucused with them in the House and the Senate for decades now, but he's obviously been holding his nose all that time.

I said it then, and I'll say it again. Sanders is trying to remake the party in its own image. The only reason he isn't running as the socialist he really is because there is no infrastructure to support it. The e Democratic Party has a lot of intact national political infrastructure. If you could seize that infrastructure, and turn it into a militantly leftist party, you'd have your socialist party. Presto! Chango!

It's a long shot, to be sure, but that's clearly what Sanders is up to. He's trying take the Democratic Party and remake it in his own socialist image. Pretty daring move. He's gotten farther than you might have thought he would at first. But it's pretty clear that the powers that be within the democratic party don't want to see the party become an outright socialist party. Otherwise, they would have become that long ago. I said then and I'll say it again, I bet they believe such a party is not likely to be a majority party anytime soon.

That's why the Super delegates are flocking to Hillary and fleeing Bernie. That's why they won't be cowed by the press or Sanders supporters into abandoning her, even if by some Sanders like miracle he manages to get more pledged delegates.

Stand your ground Democrats, you have nothing to lose but your Party.

[reformist2]

16. You actually seem thankful there are undemocratic superdelegates to block Bernie Sanders.

[kennetha]

18. Am I glad that real democratics have the power

to block a hostile takeover by outsiders, content to tear down the party and send it into the wilderness for decades again?

Darned right I am!!

[cyberswede]

28. Isn't it a bit early for PUI?

[kennetha]

38. Under the Influence of

truth and reality. You should try some.

[peacebird]

31. We lost to a hostile takeover by the DLC/Third Way years ago. We old school Democrats are

Trying to take our party back from the corporatist oligarchs.

I have been voting a D ticket & have been a staunch Democrat for over 40 years Kennetha, how about you?

[kennetha]

33. First vote was for McGovern in 72.

Look what that got us.

Consigned to the Wilderness of Presidential Power. Saved only by Nixon'x hubris and corruption and evil.

Bernie would lead us to an even greater defeat, given how easily the Senate changes hands, how gerrymandered in favor of the repugnant the house is, and how few governors we have already

[libtodeath]

40. So you regret nominating McGovern?

Yet you accuse others of not being Democrats?

[kennetha]

45. I regret his losing

[libtodeath]

56. That isn`t exactly what you just posted

[kennetha]

58. hmm...

You think I wanted Nixon?

WHat? WHere'd you get that?

[libtodeath]

60. "Look what that got us."

Your words,guess you would have rather had a dino nominated instead.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Who'd ya vote for in 1928? Hoover, or Al Smith?

There were just as many years between '28 and '72, as '72 and now.

Short answer, ITS NOT 1972 ANYMORE.

But many Boomers in particular seem incapable of dealing with the fact that it's the 21st century, which i think explains why they're so perpetually agitated and perplexed by Millennials.

The irony of the "dont trust anyone over 30" people turning into a gang of finger waggy get-off-my-lawn types, is pretty funny.

[nc4bo]

20. I thought I'd heard just about everything ridiculous on DU. I was so, so very wrong.

Many of us want to change the direction of the party.......OUR party.

Quit accusing us of not being Democratic. What utter bullshit.

[kennetha]

24. You're man isn't a democrat. never has been, never will be.

and you support him and would if he weren't running as a democrat.

Can't see how that makes you a democrat.

You're a Sanders-nista.

[nc4bo]

30. And you are (*hidden by jury decision). nt

[libtodeath]

32. And now on with the red baiting

[kennetha]

34. just an obvious play on words.

harmless little joke.

[libtodeath]

35. Sure it was

[kennetha]

37. thin skinned

Like Bernie

[libtodeath]

39. Not at all,actually quite enjoying watching you make a joke of yourself

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

44. What's your litmus test for 'being a Democrat'?

100% pure voting for Dems voting history?

Because I've voted for something like 98% Dems for nearly 30 years now, in every election, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't pass your test.

[Bjornsdotter]

71. Some of us

...are able to think outside of the box.

[libtodeath]

25. It is just desperate anger that Hillary is not going to win.

[kennetha]

27. Dream on!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

48. Ohz noes! "I said it then, and I'll say it again. Sanders is trying to remake the party"

"I said it then, and I'll say it again. Sanders is trying to remake the party in its (sic) own image."

Every President does this. Voters elect the President whose 'image' they want the party to 'be in'.

Dems have been pushing people on the left out of the tent into the cold for so long that there are finally enough of us that we might just be bigger than the severely shrunken tent. And we're ready to try to take back our tent. And the fact that you guys on the right wing of the party pretend we're 'not Democrats' won't matter if we succeed. We're going to make the tent bigger again, and drag it back to the left with us.

[workinclasszero]

67. Quoted for truth!

Sanders is trying to remake the party in its own image. The only reason he isn't running as the socialist he really is because there is no infrastructure to support it. The e Democratic Party has a lot of intact national political infrastructure. If you could seize that infrastructure, and turn it into a militantly leftist party, you'd have your socialist party. Presto! Chango!

It's a long shot, to be sure, but that's clearly what Sanders is up to. He's trying take the Democratic Party and remake it in his own socialist image. Pretty daring move. He's gotten farther than you might have thought he would at first. But it's pretty clear that the powers that be within the democratic party don't want to see the party become an outright socialist party. Otherwise, they would have become that long ago. I said then and I'll say it again, I bet they believe such a party is not likely to be a majority party anytime soon.

[reformist2]

14. Bernie will not only win a GE, he'll have big-time coat-tails.

[kennetha]

17. hah, hah, hah, hah....

You're joking right?

[cantbeserious]

29. The DWS DNC DLC Third Way Establishment Fears It Will Lose Power Plain And Simple

eom

[orpupilofnature57]

41. Because he doesn't conform to Centrist pressure or the Fear running the party since 1999 . He's a no

apology Democrat in everything he says and Votes .

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

43. I quit funding the DNC years ago myself.

The DNC kept funneling that money to crappy blue dog candidates while ignoring progressive ones. So I certainly can't fault Sanders for coming to the same conclusion. If the DNC cleans up their act and funds candidates without imposing an ideological litmus test, they might be worth funding again.

[nc4bo]

51. DNC didn't seem to be concerned about our previous mid-terms. What were they

doing with their donations if they weren't helping to GOTV during previous mid-terms?

[orpupilofnature57]

75. " It wasn't on the table " .

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

52. Same. Not a dime.

The 'Democrat' label is nothing to be loyal to when it's currently controlled by DINOs whose policies are to the right of where the GOP was when I started voting.

House needs to be cleaned.

This OP is a joke.
The DINOs got nothing to offer but threats.
Pathetic.

[Thinkingabout]

46. He is already fund raising for his next Senator reelection as an Independent.

He is trying to give a clue he is not going to be the DNC nominee. He likes fund raising, he was against big money in political campaigns but now he brags on how much money he is raising, I thought he meant big money was ruining our nation, guess I am wrong.

[kennetha]

47. link?

[Thinkingabout]

54. Here:

https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/bernies-running-for-re-election-too/

[kennetha]

57. what a piece of work Bernie is!

[pengu]

61. The DNC takes corporate money then gives it to non-progressives in primaries

They use that money to knock off progressives, just like the DCCC and DSCC. The reasoning you've presented just proves how utterly corrupt these institutions have become. Make no mistake - I know EXACTLY why establishment figures are backing Clinton. The party establishment has been nearly completely corrupted by money.

I'll stand with New Deal ideals. You can stand with the gobs of corporate cash.

[november3rd]

63. Actually, It's More Of A Quid Pro Quo

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/02/how-the-parties-worked-the-law-and-got-their-mojo-back/



her organization shares money with state parties who then support her campaign in return

[Nanjeanne]

66. I don't think they fear Sanders as much as they fear THE PEOPLE

Who will topple them from their cushy spots where they can become rich while supposedly doing the PEOPLE'S work and then become even richer when they leave and go to work for lobbyists. They fear having to actually earn the respect of the citizens they represent.

[berningman]

70. I love all the wailing and knashing of teeth. hey buck up you can always

become a republican.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

77. Hey - That Berns

...

[NurseJackie]

72. It's a short-sighted plan.

[Matariki]

76. Ah, but it's NOT a one man revolution!

And that's what really ought to worry them.

[Matariki]

78. I can't wait until President Sanders appoints someone competent to the DNC