Why (or why not) to vote for Bernie Sanders

Wow, I can get used to seeing Symone D. Sanders testify like this over the next year.


It’s certainly making a more dynamic discourse, and I’m pleased to see the positive response from Sanders and the event organisers. There’s a definite sense in which control of the discussion has to be taken rather than given, and merely having a candidate who claims to stand for what you stand for is not enough. Sanders is running on the basis of a grassroots movement, and this shows that it’s not just money that people are contributing to the campaign.


[quote=“jsroberts, post:300, topic:59394”]
Sanders is running on the basis of a grassroots movement, and this shows that it’s not just money that people are contributing to the campaign.
[/quote]Unfortunately, the BLM may end up with the bad end of this deal and I really don’t want that to happen (see below). The only winner in the end may end up being Hillary Clinton and her billionaire donor who funded the BLM. Unlike Sanders, they will very likely throw the BLM under the bus if she’s elected. Similar to what the Koch brothers did to the Tea Party grassroots people as they increasingly influenced politicians via astroturf money, etc. as well.

[quote=“Mindysan33, post:298, topic:59394”]
I think they go after Sanders because they know that, unlike the other candidates, they will get some traction with him.
[/quote]If that’s the case, I think it would be very wise at this point for the BLM leaders to be honest and transparent and say that very explicitly.

Some of the BLM movement may be counting on Hillary Clinton to win and fear challenging her, however, they’re losing some Sanders supporters in the process (including many blacks). That’s not good for the Black Lives Matter movement. It’s creating solidarity issues at a critical time in the BLM movement.

Not including any criticism towards Clinton by the BLM is a rotten strategy especially now that everyone is finding out that the BLM movement was funded by a Hillary Clinton billionaire campaign donor.

The dire problem with that strategy is Sanders supporters are increasingly tiring of a focus that’s only on Sanders especially when it includes baseless attacks such as saying his supporters in Seattle were “white supremacist liberals” along with other vicious hyperbole such as Sanders is “ignoring the plight of black people”.

The problem is the BLM is justifiably appearing to Sanders supporters as a group that’s giving Hillary Clinton a pass while attempting to derail his campaign in order to have her win.

BLM is losing support due to this fact and this includes many blacks (see above).

A long time ago a big lie was propagated by marketing agencies that’s still being repeated today that “all publicity is good publicity”. That’s untrue. There is such a thing as bad publicity and it can have devastating effects even for great causes.

The BLM at the very least needs to start releasing statements against Hillary Clinton and also attend her events and make some noise there. Otherwise, they are going to begin to lose support and that’s a damn shame because most of Sanders supporters support the movement, but not their increasingly partisan tactic of focusing on Sanders and Sanders alone.

Add to that the recent hyperbole and lack of transparency I mentioned above to @Mindysan33, and the BLM may start to lose ground despite all the billionaire astroturf money that was put behind it. Kind of like how the Tea Party spun out of control after the Koch brothers increasingly pulled strings behind it.

I support Black Lives Matter, however some of their tactics are equivalent to shooting oneself in the foot and I’m not alone in that opinion, by far. The billionaire can continue to throw money at BLM and Hillary Clinton, but it won’t persevere if it’s found have an opaque agenda against Sanders and a promotional platform for Clinton.

History has shown us that true grassroots movements don’t function very well for progressives once they become corrupted by billionaires. And, the longer the BLM appears like it’s in the pocket of a billionaire by giving Hillary Clinton a pass, the weaker it will become.

I want the BLM movement to gain strength. However, an opaque, anti-solidarity angle isn’t going to accomplish that very goal well.

The negative reaction on Twitter and other social media by POC against BLM is strong right now. I mentioned a small sampling in one of my previous posts and please observe just one example of many on Facebook now as well:

Look at the top-voted comments there. Billionaire money isn’t going to white-wash that negative reaction from both POC and others.

This was posted only 4 hours before my screenshot and it’s already hitting almost ONE MILLION views: Seriously read the top comments.

(click on image to enlarge - may have to click twice & scroll it)


I just checked it again at about 3:17 PM Denver, CO time. It’s now rapidly heading towards two million views in just a matter of hours. Currently near 1.8 million.

Final update: 6:50PM …

Now up to about 3 MILLION in a matter of hours.

The POC are still at top and vastly positive for Bernie and vasty negative for the BLM.


This is bad for the BLM. This is bad. It sadly seems tragically similar to astroturf-esque mistakes. Honesty and transparency with a heaping of good strategy is the way to go. This BLM move that leaves Hillary without criticism to is going south fast.

I think there’s a lot more POC supporting Bernie Sanders than much of the establishment realizes and perhaps some here at Boing Boing do as well. I don’t think some of you realize just how incredibly effective our truly grassroots outreach into urban communities has been already. We’re moving and growing much faster than I think some of you can imagine (and certainly beyond the establishment bean-counters expectations).

[quote=“funruly, post:297, topic:59394”]
Now we can watch as Clinton again needs to dance to the left.
[/quote]Pandering to the left by Clinton and what Sanders is doing are two radically different things.


Interesting. I saw this today. Any thoughts?


Interesting. One of the commenters pointed to the fact that the two protesters are from the group “Outside Agitators 206”. Here’s their press release on the issue:


This city is filled with white progressives, which is why Bernie Sanders’ camp was obviously expecting a friendly and consenting audience for today’s campaign visit. The problem with Sanders’, and with white Seattle progressives in general, is that they are utterly and totally useless (when not outright harmful) in terms of the fight for Black lives. While we are drowning in their liberal rhetoric, we have yet to see them support Black grassroots movements or take on any measure of risk and responsibility for ending the tyranny of white supremacy in our country and in our city. This willful passivity while claiming solidarity with the ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ movement in an effort to be relevant is over. White progressive Seattle and Bernie Sanders cannot call themselves liberals while they participate in the racist system that claims Black lives. Bernie Sanders will not continue to call himself a man of the people, while ignoring the plight of Black people. Presidential candidates will not win Black votes without putting out an explicit criminal justice reform package. As was said at the Netroots action, presidential candidates should expect to be shut down and confronted every step along the way of this presidential campaign. Black people are in a state of emergency. Lines have been drawn in the sand. You are either fighting continuously and measurably to protect Black life in America, or you are a part of the white supremacist system that we will tear down in the liberation of our people.

1 Like

I think the article makes some good points, but still doesn’t grasp our 2015 grassroots dynamic like most of our establishment, corporate media.

There’s also a lot of other flaws that border on outright bullshit. For example, the NYT makes a big to-do of the amount of blacks at Sanders’ events.

Um, why did they pick 2012 when Obama had much more name recognition? They should be comparing 2007 with his first run against Hillary.

And, what the NYT doesn’t mention is that Obama had mostly white people show up to his earlier events as well:

Here’s 2007, Mr Obama’s open-air rallies draw huge (mostly white) crowds. Nevertheless, as the year wears on, Hillary Clinton stubbornly clings to her 20-odd per cent poll lead.

- source

This is Texas in 2007 with basically the same percentage of blacks that Sanders had.

Also, the NYT isn’t taking into account the much more pervasive presence of online social media. There’s many blacks that show support for Sanders on Facebook and Twitter that’s going to catch the establishment off-guard.

Unfortunately, I don’t have further time to take this article apart, but it does have critical flaws. Frankly, I think the media is headed for a lot of embarrassment as time goes on. The NYT has been spelling doom and gloom for Bernie Sanders from the very beginning and being proven increasingly wrong as time, massive crowds and support builds for Sanders despite their incessant naysaying.

Speaking of… crowds:

So, Sanders got 15,000 people the other day in Seattle after the BLM fiasco. Well, 24 hours later Bernie is greeted by:

Bernie Sanders packs 28,000 people in sports arena


How long before 40-50,000 people? How long before the corporate media has to finally admit Bernie Sanders can really win the White House? The media doesn’t want to talk about it, however in states where Obama drew large crowds before 2008, it reflected later wins for him. I mean, they can shrug off 28,000 people this early in the race, I suppose, but it’s increasingly looking like denial.



Part of my response from yesterday: (emphasis mine)

[quote=“Cowicide, post:305, topic:59394”]… Frankly, I think the media is headed for a lot of embarrassment as time goes on. The NYT has been spelling doom and gloom for Bernie Sanders from the very beginning and being proven increasingly wrong as time, massive crowds and support builds for Sanders despite their incessant naysaying.

Also, the NYT isn’t taking into account the much more pervasive presence of online social media. There’s many blacks that show support for Sanders on Facebook and Twitter that’s going to catch the establishment off-guard.

Now today…

Cue yet another massive rally for Bernie Sanders with nearly 30,000 people in a packed stadium except now it’s got a diverse crowd mixed with people of color (see below).

Now, some have been questioning my premise that Sanders has a lot of black supporters and other POC. The reason I know he has them is due to the fact that I’ve been activitely researching the matter by looking at his social media support using time-tested methodologies.

Why would I be using my own research?

That’s due to the fact that the corporate media is very much relying on half-assed polling figures while behaving actively hostile and biased against the Sanders campaign. The corporate media’s actions have destroyed a lot of their legitimacy on the matter.

So, do some think my methodologies are wrong, perhaps? Well… something just happened that proves me right:

A more diverse crowd of about 30,000 people just showed up to his latest rally:

Quote: (emphasis mine)

" … The crowd was noticeably more diverse than those at recent Sanders rallies in Portland, Seattle and other majority white cities — Los Angeles is majority-minority, with about 44 percent of its population Latino.

Those who came to “Feel the Bern” — a popular chant among Sanders supporters — were white, Latino, black and Asian. There were young hipsters and graying hippies. Some wore black T-shirts with red hammers and sickles, others wore black T-shirts that read, “Black Lives Matter.” They sang along as the loudspeakers blasted songs by Willie Nelson, Tracy Chapman and Neil Young. … "

I’ve said it many times before and I’ll say it again. Bernie Sanders has vastly more support from blacks and other POC than the corporate media has any clue of. And, frankly, even if they did perform proper research and knew what I knew, they’d likely shelve the information.

We shouldn’t fall for the corporate media hype against Bernie Sanders.

And, take a long, hard look at that picture of just his latest stadium-packed crowd. Isn’t it fair to say that the corporate media has been proven resoundingly wrong that he’s been a “fringe candidate”?

Why should we trust a repeatedly, provably wrong and discounted corporate media for our information on whether or not Bernie Sanders has a large following and can win or not?


Yet more support:


I ask you all to read the whole thing.


That was great, thoughtful, and from someone who was there and had a specific stake in the event and state/local politics. Thanks for posting. I too think everyone should read it.

1 Like

I ask you all to read this whole thing. (It’s now at 7 million views since yesterday)

Please read all the comments and look at who they are from. The overwhelming majority are people of color against what the BLM organization did to Sanders that day.

After the protests, several people came up and wanted to talk. Many were furious—some white people said they no longer support BLM. Others said they do support it but this erodes their support.

Most blacks and other POC feel the exact, same way about it. That was a bad day for the BLM organization on multiple levels.

Here’s what I would love even more: for the Sanders campaign and BLM nationally to sit down and talk about an agenda on racial justice that he can use his presidential platform to help move. Imagine rolling out that agenda and inviting black people to talk about it on stage with him.

I think that’s a great idea. However, after this last stunt, I’m not sure the BLM organization is the one to do it alone. I think it’s perhaps time to look at some other grassroots movements that also fight against police brutality and invite them onto the fold as well. If the BLM organization continues its present course and crashes, we really shouldn’t allow it to stall the overall movement against police brutality and racism.

Bernie Sanders Hires #BlackLivesMatter Supporter and Criminal Justice Advocate Symone Sanders as Press Secretary.

@funruly, of course, posted the video of her speaking at Sanders’ rally here:

Bernie Sanders brought the BLM into the fold in a very inclusive manner by making a BLM activist his Campaign Press Secretary and the thanks he got from others in the BLM organization was partisan, vicious lies against himself and his supporters.

With progressive friends like this, who needs corporatist enemies?


Unless the BLM organization wants people to question some of their motives and erode themselves into oblivion, I would suggest that they knock off the partisan lies against Sanders and his supporters and stick with facts and constructive criticism in the future.

Also, remaining absolutely silent on Hillary Clinton is getting increasingly suspect. This open letter has been unanswered for far too long:

Read the top comments at this video here and the video on the BLM stunt is good as well:

I think most further discussion of the BLM organization should be put into a separate, new thread before this thread goes too far off-topic. They are just one issue of many dire issues affecting all Americans in this country and the world. Sanders supports the BLM and most of the BLM supports Sanders. Here’s part of Sanders’ plan to fight police brutality, etc.:

Racial Justice - Bernie Sanders

The BLM has done a lot of good, but they screwed up the other day. However, many Sanders supporters (including me) still support the BLM organization overall despite their screw up. If the BLM continues to ignore Hillary Clinton while attempting to use Sanders and his supporters as a punching bag with vicious, partisan lies, then my support (and many others) will erode and it will be time to advance other groups that are against police brutality in their place.

The rest I would say about this is already said here:


Here he is! :slight_smile:

He wasn’t satisfied acting as an advisor to Sanders, so he’s thinking of running against him now. Similar to some within the BLM organization, Lessig thinks his one issue is more important than all other issues. I guess Lessig and the BLM will have to fight that out. Proper strategy hasn’t always been Lessig’s strong suit:

In other news:


Bernie Sanders surges ahead of Hillary Clinton in N.H., 44-37


This is the crux of it, really. How we netizens get our information is irrelevant. It’s how the rest of the 300 million get their information, and how we can overthrow that paradigm. TV must die, and how will we make that happen?

For example, the US has 10 million more cell phones in use than the entire population of the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobile_phones_in_use

So what gives? Why can’t that become the primary news device? Screen too small?

But wait, there’s this:

Half of Youtube views are on mobile devices.


That’s right. No one is doing that.


The most popular YouTube channels are stuff like Smosh, PewDiePie and Minecraft stuff. Those aren’t adults… it’s kids. #news is a grab-bag of the recent clips of popular stuff in the news from the major and minor media. It’s not a “show” like Last Week Tonight.

People use YouTube for clips and fun, at least in the USA.

What ifffffff… nahhhhh… OK… I’ll say it. What if someone important, say a guy like Mr. Sanders

What if THAT GUY, started using YouTube EXCLUSIVELY for his messaging, in addition to the huge rallies, and got, say, millions to tune OUT of TV and INTO their stupid handhelds?

Now might be the time to try something like that…



Clinton and Bush may duke it out on Twitter, but Sanders is social media king

Frankly, I think TrollZone Twitter is a powerful communications tool, but I look to Facebook to see where the real support is at. Hillary Clinton’s minions can very easily purchase Twitter astroturf accounts to inflate her numbers, but Facebook is much tougher nut to crack for astroturfers.

Unlike Twitter, Facebook accounts tend to be real people connected to real friends (or a least acquaintances) and actual family members. Meanwhile, Twitter is a haven for false identities, trolls, socks and astroturfing. Twitter is a powerful communications vehicle, but you use it to get more Facebook support which more often leads to real-world action.

And, I’m saying this as someone who hates Facebook.


But can it replace TV? It won’t, and Facebook won’t either. I’m saying the only rational alternative to TV is YouTube. At least right now. We don’t have another thing. Not Netflix, not HULU, not any of the others even touch YouTube’s video-into-your-eyeballs presence. YouTube is the only thing that could replace TV, which is the problem we are discussing: the corporate media being locked up for Hillary and Trumpover. Used the right way, YouTube could overthrow that paradigm…


What a dipshit. Sorry, but that is the dumbest move possible. To hell with Lessig.



You’re definitely correct that online video streaming can’t be ignored:

Google thinks they’ve already beat regular TV:


Will it translate into votes for Sanders? Sure! Will it be enough to beat Clinton and her non-stop commercials on regular TV? I hope so. The problem with that is two-fold, though. Those ads are also basically bribes to help keep regular TV news complicit in working for Clinton and against Sanders.

That said, here’s what’s going on thus far.

Bernie Sanders official YouTube channels:


Of course, there’s tons of unofficial channels as well. YouTube is a great, vital tool among other online tools. In my opinion, the best support that will translate into the most votes is via good, old fashioned word-of-mouth via grassroots supporters talking about Sanders to others and offline door-to-door campaigns as well. Those supporters will certainly utilize YouTube (I know I do!) along with Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

[quote=“awjt, post:315, topic:59394”]
What a dipshit. Sorry, but that is the dumbest move possible. To hell with Lessig.
[/quote]I think the air is getting too thin up in Lessig’s ivory tower and it’s making him very light-headed.

Lessig makes the silly, obtuse point that he’d name Warren as his VP and perhaps resign to give her the presidency. He should get the memo that Warren isn’t running and she needs to get foreign policy experience before she does run and/or become president. That’s one of the main reasons why she isn’t running in 2016.

He’s also said that his VP might be Sanders. Um, no… all that’s going to happens is Lessig is going to be a spoiler in favor of Hillary Clinton. I’m seriously losing respect for Lessig the more I think about this. What a fantastic way for Lessig to associate his good ideas on campaign finance reform with harebrained stunts that lack proper strategy. I hope he doesn’t ruin his good name by following through on this right now.


I forgot to link to this video:


But look at the article that @funruly linked above:

That person is a Bernie Sanders supporter (i.e., she has not endorsed him but she is excited about his candidacy) and wrote a lengthy piece explaining how this conflict made her feel and how she thinks about coming to some sort of positive resolution.

Every movement is going to have people who are eager to use aggression to defend it against all comers. I totally agree that those people will mostly have no problem being racist, sexist or whateverist against people who they perceive as threats. That doesn’t necessarily define the movement. When Colbert took on #CancelColbert on his show, he had to take a moment to break character and speak directly to people who were harassing Suey Park and tell them to cut it out. I think some top down message like that would be good (and it might already have happened for all I know) but even then I don’t think it would stop that kind of response completely.

What do you do when you suddenly find yourself in possession of attack dogs you didn’t purchase or train won’t listen to your commands? I think that’s still a tough question, but I don’t see any equivalence between that and something like :crocodile: where someone intentionally set off a directed attack by lying to a group of people known to be ready to attack.