Bernie Sander’s ‘Political Revolution’ Can Only Come About if He Abandons the Democrats

[eridani]

Third party advocates who think that most voters pay attention to detailed policy wonkery are delusional. In my highly Democratic legislative district, 50% of the Precinct Committe slots are vacant. It would be a very simple matter from progressives to take over the whole apparatus.

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/05/16/bernie-sander-political-revolution-can-only-come-about-if-he-abandons-the-democrats/

On one hand, it’s easy to see why Sanders launched his campaign within the Democratic Party. Even though the Vermont senator is a lifelong independent, he’s also a realist who knows that to run a campaign that has a chance of winning a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all race with 270 Electoral College votes, it has to be done within the two-party structure. Candidates from other parties, like the Green Party’s Jill Stein or the Justice Party’s Rocky Anderson, have revolutionary ideas but are forever relegated to outside status by the punditocracy that has trained Americans about who is acceptable to vote for based on dollars raised and pollsters’ rankings. Without Elizabeth Warren in the race, Sanders is the standalone progressive populist in the Democratic primary.

However, running as a Democrat means Sanders is second to Hillary Clinton, who has pledged to raise $2.5 billion this election cycle. To highlight the absurdity of that number, it would be more money raised for just one candidate than the cumulative amount raised by both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012, combined. The fact remains that American elections favor those with more money – candidates with the most campaign cash tend to win nine times out of 10. Clinton will be counting on that deluge of cash to flood the airwaves in her favor and drown out anything Sanders would say. She’s also likely to test Sanders’s populist rhetoric in focus groups for her own campaign, and use the more agreeable points to paint herself as the “reasonable” candidate to shore up enough Democrats to guarantee her the win. Sanders has already pledged to throw his support behind Clinton if she indeed wins the nomination, leading some critics to call him a “sheepdog” used to herd leftist energy into the same Democratic Party that’s let the American people down over and over again.

[Autumn]

1. Sooner or later Hillary will have to start campaigning instead of just talking

to supporters and donors, when she does Bernie will be not second to Hillary Clinton or anyone else.

[rbnyc]

3. +1

[rbnyc]

2. Why Radicals Like Bernie Sanders Should Run As Democrats, Not Independents

http://inthesetimes.com/article/17948/bernie_sanders_democrats

I love that you posted both these articles.

[Jim Lane]

4. This is the kind of self-delusion I heard about Nader's campaigns.

Nader had high name recognition and was widely respected, but somehow HIS decision to run as a third-party candidate didn't "create a shockwave in American politics." He couldn't even break 3% of the vote in 2000. Furthermore, the vast majority of those supporters deserted him in 2004, when four years of Bush had shown the foolishness of Nader's minimization of the differences between the two major parties. Nader would have done much more good had he run as a Democrat, using the debates with Bradley and Gore to get his message out.

The Sanders campaign will do more for the progressive cause than Nader's quixotic ventures, even if you set aside Nader's role as one of the factors that put Bush in the White House.

I'm glad you posted this. It's informative, albeit depressingly so, to see that a new generation of progressives is chasing this same will-o'-the-wisp -- the fond belief that millions of Americans are just waiting for a militant leftist candidate, and, when offered one, they will rise up and elect him or her.

[joshcryer]

5. I initially read the title and thought it was about dumping the platform.

And the platform isn't good on some issues (particularly MIC). It highly lacks a basic income, single payer, fee and dividend, things like that. A Sanders platform would be a pretty significant shift from the waffling position of the platform (fee and dividend comes to mind because the platform just talks about dealing with climate change, but doesn't endorse a method).

But nope, the article is about dumping the party altogether and running as a Nader-esque candidate. Seems the writer of the article doesn't know a damn thing about Bernie and his character. He would never do that.