Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

M Kitt

(208 posts)
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 01:47 PM Jan 2016

Senator Sanders is an Outsider, thankfully! [View all]

Last edited Sun Jan 17, 2016, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillary for VP? Not likely.

She's an "Insider" who has accepted campaign finance money from the large banking and investment interests.

The possibility of bringing Hillary in as VP would have occurred to Mr. Sanders, I'm sure.

The relevant question, I'm thinking, is whether or not he'd need Hillary's support to get those voters. Based on current polling, that's not likely, so I'm guessing he'd not carry her as VP Don't think she'd accept that "Secondary" position, regardless.

And what would an Outsider like Senator Sanders be like in the White House?

As an established outsider, would he maintain that viewpoint, IE "Philosophy", as he's been doing all along up 'til now?

Well, he's already got that "Status", so why not use it in his favor?

I've heard it said that if elected to the White House Bernie could be a "Catalyst", would bring about a landslide of change and sweep both houses causing Dem/Progressive majorities, bring progressive candidates along for the ride.

Possible, right? Is there evidence to support that?

Our current POTUS had that kind of support once in office, but lost it as time played out. Impressive win, historically, and had majorities in both houses at one point BUT lost much of that support 2 years later in the next election cycle.

Why? Public Disappointment, you would think.

He spoke as a Progressive Outsider before the Presidential election, ran on that platform but behaved as a Centrist Dem, or Liberal Republican, perhaps, once elected. We "Disappointed" voters understand that he could have used his Presidential influence much more progressively once in office, but chose not to.

Examples?

So this President COULD HAVE refused to bring Wall Street insiders into his cabinet, he COULD have NOT supported further investment bank bailouts, and COULD have NOT decided that investigations of Political Corruption against the Bush Administration were a bad idea, War Crimes or not.

This President COULD HAVE shown us all that "Too Big to Fail" concerns didn't necessarily apply within our political system, that combined Wall Street and Investment Banking influences didn't control behavior of that administration, that their money wouldn't buy influence within the Obama White House.

That outcome has been quite unfortunate for all of us, since the "Lock-down" of Congress and Senate bills has remained in place ever since we lost the Congressional majority. So Public Programs have been in decay across 2 full Presidential terms in office, all because Constituent Support was lost based on (mistaken?) policies over the last several years.

So as President, would Bernie "Sell Out", once elected?

One of the latest comments on another thread gave Bernie 90 days before he "Sells Out" to some extent or another, but I honestly don't think that would be the case. I think this Senator recognizes what few today seem to, that supporting the "Status Quo" isn't a benefit to a candidate running for office in our current political climate. Wouldn't benefit him in office, either.

Not in terms of "Voter Support", at least. Media airtime can be bought. Voter Support, tho, cannot.

What's the difference?

If you have no message, no resonating Hope and Change! platform of policies that lift you above the other candidates, you may as well have nothing in terms of actual political influence and support.

Because campaign finance alone will not buy the TRUST & INTEGRITY needed as currency for votes, money won't necessarily get you elected in the current campaign environment.

Which seems to be the factor that plays in favor of "Outsiders" like Senator Sanders, these days many of us are fed up with the current political process and results to date, especially over the last few terms.

BUT those with "Insider" money can at least broadcast their message to the public. Like Hillary

So what WILL "Insider" money get you?

Giving in to questionable sources of Campaign money like Super PAC Corporate provided financial support?

Or Koch brothers (Tea Party!) money? That money buys "Media Air Time" as mentioned above. Politically Beneficial coverage on what passes for news these days, that's what money CAN buy.

Just Ask Trump

That is what I attribute the popularity of Mr. Jacka$$ Donald Trump to, he's a Loud Outspoken Outsider who's not supportive of the "Status Quo". He's also a Stupid Bigot obviously, but he's quite Popular.

Regardless of his obvious lack of informed or coherent opinions. Media air time? He's got all that money can buy

And What about Senator Sanders, is he just another Outsider?

Bernie? He's an Outsider who's not either Stupid or a Bigot.

AND he seems to realize that it's to his advantage while running for office to REMAIN an outsider, hence he's not taking money from the usual corruptive influences. Instead, he's getting media attention (and funding) thru Grass Roots support, and limited donations from private donors.

He's also using Social Media feeds to gain support, as President Obama did while running for office (Go ActBlue!).

NO Corporate or Wall Street money like Hillary, NO Super PAC money like the Tea Publican GOP primary insiders.

Because of that, there's another VERY large difference between "The Donald" and Senator Sanders, one that should serve all of us once he's in office. This difference applies to Hillary Clinton, also.

Senator Sanders has ALWAYS been an outsider, and is actually running on that premise. In fact, he's been elected on that platform for his entire political career, and Big Money sources haven't ever purchase an election for him. Hence, he's not a Sock Puppet for any of those Special Interests.

In his case it's actually Integrity that defines him as an outsider, not politics as usual to support an election campaign.

For what it's worth, Thanks.

32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sen. Sanders has been a D.C. political fixture for decades bigtree Jan 2016 #1
Yup. Agschmid Jan 2016 #3
But as an independent. mmonk Jan 2016 #6
who caucused with, voted well over 95% of the time, with Democrats in Congress bigtree Jan 2016 #7
Because they were closer to his beliefs. mmonk Jan 2016 #9
thus, 'principled' bigtree Jan 2016 #12
Maverick is fine. mmonk Jan 2016 #17
Sanders is not in the pocket of the establishment, by that standard he's an outsider. TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #10
he's enmeshed in establishment politics bigtree Jan 2016 #13
Well, let's define what an "Outsider" would be. M Kitt Jan 2016 #14
Bernie is obviously an outsider. Hillary is an insider. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #23
Thanks JDP, agreed. M Kitt Jan 2016 #27
Supposing that were true, it's not, but supposing. M Kitt Jan 2016 #26
I agree somewhat. With Democrats at mmonk Jan 2016 #2
Excellent post!!! K & R! TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #4
Bernie has wisdom and experience that Obama didn't have, as special as he also is. Gregorian Jan 2016 #5
Bernie as an outsider??? ha ha. riversedge Jan 2016 #8
Outside of Jamie Dimon. mmonk Jan 2016 #11
He actually is, in many ways, an outsider. It's not just his party status cali Jan 2016 #15
See Reply #13. M Kitt Jan 2016 #16
He is of course NOT an outsider, just the opposite. But, I dont want one anyway randys1 Jan 2016 #18
Refer to comment #13, please. M Kitt Jan 2016 #21
Insider/Outsider? Well, he certainly isn't "politics-as-usual" or "not as bad". K&R Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #19
Aw... Look whose thread got locked! Now talk some more shit! Blue_Tires Jan 2016 #20
Hmm. I'll just say that some of these comments impress me beyond words. M Kitt Jan 2016 #22
K&R. Thanks. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #24
When I first went to the Hill in 1993, Sanders was there. Clinton wasn't. O'Malley wasn't. Recursion Jan 2016 #25
Another Denier, and who do you support? MOM, I see. M Kitt Jan 2016 #28
"Another denier"? What the hell does that even mean? Recursion Jan 2016 #29
Messianic? Replied to in kind, what the hell does that even mean? M Kitt Jan 2016 #30
No, not productive at all Recursion Jan 2016 #31
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2016 #32
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Senator Sanders is an Out...»Reply #0