2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders Calls for 50-State Strategy to 'Revitalize American Democracy'
Describing the Republican Party's platform as a "fringe agenda," Sanders said that problem of recent years is not that the GOP is "winning elections," but rather that the "Democratic Party is losing" them.
"In November of 2014," Sanders explained, "63 percent of people did not vote. Eighty percent of young people and low-income people did not vote. And I think the reason for that is that the Democratic Party up to now has not been clear about which side they are on on the major issues facing this country."
"The Democratic Party has to reach a fundamental conclusion: Are we on the side working people or big money interests? Do we stand with the elderly, the children, and the sick and the poor, or do we stand with Wall Street speculators and the drug companies and the insurance companies?" Bernie Sanders
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/28/sanders-calls-50-state-strategy-revitalize-american-democracy
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Just because eighty percent don't vote is no reason to say they don't vote.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...across the country encouraging young people to vote.
If he doesn't have the funds for that in 2018 then the DSCC should pay for it.
The reason Democrats usually do badly in midterms is some young people only vote in presidential years.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-congress_us_5720e608e4b0b49df6a9c933
Squinch
(50,897 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)The (Third Way) Democratic Party stands with big money interests, Wall Street speculators, the drug companies, and the insurance companies. Proudly, IMO. Mission accomplished.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Especially African-American low-income voters.
They have been voting for her in large numbers.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Who votes for Hillary is not the topic - the topic is who does the Third Way-dominated Democratic party stand with. IMO they stand, now, with the 1%, Wall Street, the MIC, and corporations.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I guess we will find out.
djean111
(14,255 posts)As I said, that is not the topic of this OP. And, yeah, we will find out. I will just be watching, this time around. Neither candidate means well for people, IMO.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Follow through, not so much
peace13
(11,076 posts)She was big bubba's first line of offense on mass incarceration and more. Watch the videos of her time as tag team Pres. The poor who voted for her should not be surprised when they get nothing. The people who have been watching this endless election cycle have seen that Hill has no issues of her own. She ran the Me Too campaign. If Bernie's gonna do it, me too! Pretty clear what has been happening. If you aren't a bank or corporation....forget it. Big plus, her ears don't open unless you pay her. Oh wait, I don't even know if that's true. She does get paid to 'talk' though.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)She played a big role in making that happen.
She also pushed for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which helped address the rights of women in the workplace.
She also helped write the Pediatric Research Equity Act which improved drug labeling with respect to medication administered to children.
She co-sponsored the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act which extended benefits provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
It's only fair to look at her whole record, not just the aspects of it that you don't like.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Thanks for your list. While it appeared that she helped children, I believe the record shows that other 'programs' were less than that! Have a good one. I would love to look at the whole record...unfortunately much of that is concealed from us. Yet another problem.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Here are some important points made by Black Lives Matter Activist Ashley Williams:
The 1994 Crime Bill that she so vigorously defended not only expanded incarceration, but stripped funding for college education from prisoners. The Clinton legacy allowed for policies that prevented anyone convicted of a felony drug offense from receiving food stamps or income assistance. Clinton-led welfare reform fundamentally ripped apart the social safety net.
Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton's efforts to push these policies resulted in the continued destruction of Black communities and the swift growth of our mass incarceration crisis.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)For what that is worth.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bill but spoke out against the part that locked up minorities. The very part that Clinton supported as mentioned by BLM. She is tough, I'll give you that. Tough on people on welfare, tough on marijuana crimes. Fills those Prisons For Profits that support her campaign.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Many members of the BLM movement are not supporting Sanders either.
Reluctant votes count just as much as enthusiastic ones.
64 Democrats voted against the bill in the House - there was no reason he couldn't join them if he wanted to. It would have passed regardless.
Incidentally 188 Democrats in the House voted in favor of the bill, along with 54 out of 56 Democrats in the Senate, including Paul Wellstone, one of the leading progressive voices in the Senate at the time.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)isn't true. Sen Sanders spoke out passionately against those parts of the bill that included tough sentencing that Clinton supported. He voted because the bill had parts he though were important.
The important point is that he does not favor the tough (Clinton tough) sentencing for minor drug offenses that are filling Clinton's Prisons For Profits.
If you didn't like the BLM quote maybe you will like this quote:
― Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He's not running for office.
Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 Crime Bill.
What were the parts of the bill that Sanders thought were important enough to override his passionate opposition to the parts of the bill that included tough sentencing?
What was in the bill that Sanders supported so strongly that he decided to vote for it in spite of his other objections?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)See my signature statement.
As far as Sanders signing the Crime Bill, there is tons of info at your fingertips on the internets if you reallly are interested. But I am always glad to accommodate.
it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence.
And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails.
Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance.
During consideration of the bill, Sanders voted six times to weaken or eliminate the death penalty provisions and voted separately against creating new mandatory minimums. Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke strongly in favor of increased incarceration, labeling at risk youth as super-predators who had to be brought to heel.
Sanders reluctantly voted for it because:
So let's review. Sanders was against the mass incarceration of millions esp of minorities while Clinton:
Clinton's Prisons For Profits have been very grateful to the Clintons for their profit margin. So grateful they have supported the election of Clinton as President. It's all about greed for the Conservative Wing of our Party.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The quote in your signature statement is from her, not speaking on behalf of the entire Black Lives Movement. You provide another quote from her in the body of your message and ascribe it to "BLM" but it is her opinion only, not a statement from the movement itself. Ashley Williams is not the only voice of significance within the African-American community. The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, overwhelmingly supports Hillary Clinton's candidacy. As former President Clinton noted, a lot of African-American leaders supported the 1994 crime bill at the time, including said caucus. Hillary Clinton clearly has been able to convey a message that has won her widespread support in the African-American community. She has carried that demographic in state after state throughout this process, in many cases by very large margins. Presumably the people who vote for her in this community know what they are doing.
Incidentally, the House version of the bill that Bernie Sanders voted for did not include a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons.
Here's Politifact on that subject:
Sanders says he voted for the 1994 crime bill because "there is a ban on assault weapons in that bill."
There were many votes surrounding the crime bill. The trouble with Sanders claim is that his contention that he voted for the crime bill because of the assault weapons ban is at odds with votes for the bill that include no such ban.
As often with congressional votes, there is a lot of gray area to determining a legislators motivations.
We rate Sanders claim Half True.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)drug crimes. Honestly, you'd be throwing Wellstone under the bus with 95% of the other Dems now. Good luck getting anything done except pointing fingers.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Republicans do well with low-income voters, too. I trust you see the problem...
Squinch
(50,897 posts)recent years. We have not had the Congress or the state legislatures to do much to counteract the Republicans and the tea party movement. That is because we don't vote well in off years or down ticket.
I am a vocal and strong supporter of Hillary. I love this idea of Sanders's. It is something that acknowledges how things realistically happen. I will work for this effort.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)fans? In any case "Full Ignore" for you.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
mythology
(9,527 posts)[Hillary Clintons] grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories where Bernie Sanders did not compete, said senior strategist Tad Devine. Where we compete with Clinton, where this competition is real, we have a very good chance of beating her in every place that we compete with her.
Devine named eight states where he said the Sanders campaign did not compete with a big presence on the ground or much on-air advertising: Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bernie-sanders-campaign-offers-awkward-take-state-the-race
So per his own campaign, they didn't run a 50 state campaign.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)him in the Dem ranks advocating for such a 50 state strategy.
Johnny-come-lately in the last few months. What a crass opportunist.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)A 50 state solution can not be a one-size-fix-all solution. If the senator and his staffers look at the map and choose candidates that can best serve
and winin their district, fine. Tell me where to send my $27 dollars. If however, this becomes an exercise of who passes this year's XYZ national progressive purity test, it will be dead in the water before it even begins.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Well that doesn't take much effort. The Democratic Party has been coopted by Big Money and we must kick the DINO's out.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)Welcome to the ignore list. Bernie couldn't get elected dogcatcher in my state. If you want a 50 state party, you have to confront the reality that there isn't a wellspring of young white progressives that will be ready to show and toss whatever parental surrogate that they are salivating our across the finish line. You have to tailor candidates for specific states/regions and that does not work when the purity test now contains xyz issue because there was a really engaging documentary on it. You can stick to riding unicorns with Daddy, some of us want to get democrats elected. Have fun rooting for the losing team.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And if we referred to Hillary as "granny" we would get alerted on. So we won't refer to Hillary as granny.
And "daddy"? You seem to have some real issues, I hope you get some help for that. You remind me of another Hillary supporter who said if we don't support Hillary, we have "mommy" issues. Y'all need some professional help. Soon.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)We should definitely support more Progressive candidates.
If the point is to simply count coup against Republicans, we should stick to our partisan identity politics.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)I am wondering if he's the right person to make this pitch.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)There is a hidden spring of young white progressives voters that will put Berniecrats everywhere over the finish line that just needs to be tapped.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I know everyone (except a couple of obstinate bubble-dwellers) are clamoring that the status quo is untenable, but surely that doesn't mean we should get our collective head out of our collective ass actually start ... serving the people? Representing them? Abandoning the exclusive interests of the very richest Americans?
That would be... Democratic. We can't have that! Third Way or the Highway, even if it is a dead end!
Triana
(22,666 posts)Establishment Dem party don't need no stinkin' 50-state strategy. Just look how good they did without it in 2010 an 2012, eh Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?
Pfffft.
djean111
(14,255 posts)openly supports and campaigns for her GOP cronies.
How many seats has she presided over losing? Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. Under Obama, while Debbie is running things. Yeah, there is a strategy. But it is to make the Democratic party into a Third Way and MIC run corporate-controlled party. I cannot belong to that, many others will not join, or will quit. Congratulations, Debbie, Hillary, and the Third Way!
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)I might have supported this sort of thing from Bernie...but no more...his behavior has made it impossible for me to support anything he does.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)He makes me sick. I turn off the TV when he comes on...I am in it to win the general...and this guy has no chance and is helping Trump...he is losing ugly.
brooklynite
(94,266 posts)No money from Sanders, or his supporters.
MadBadger
(24,089 posts)0rganism
(23,912 posts)strengthening the economic justice movement within the Democratic party and tying it to off-year voting malaise
Bravo Bernie!
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Articulating a new vision when the wheels are starting to come off your campaign is not very persuasive or impressive. I've never been able to get enthused about the idea of Sanders as President, I feel he'd be extremely reactive to circumstances rather than able to push his agenda through. OK that's a problem for politicians in general but I would have been much impressed if he had started talking strategy earlier instead of peddling revolution.
Maru Kitteh
(28,313 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)and he can take up the mantle of Howard Dean and work on our 50 state strategy.
Demsrule86
(68,440 posts)You have to live in the real world and not be a purist to run the DNC...I shudder to think of the races Bernie would lose. Also, no one likes him well enough.
Uncle Joe
(58,255 posts)Thanks for the thread, FreakinDJ.