[quote=“daneel, post:350, topic:59394”]
I like the Greens a lot (in fact, I voted for them in the UK this year). But they can’t and won’t win a Presidential election.
[/quote]I agree with you very much.
If the Greens are smart about strategy, they’ll put their support behind Bernie Sanders. If he wins, there’s hope for progressive third parties gaining strength in the following elections. If Hillary or a Republican wins, no way.
Bernie Sanders already knows this and has known this for decades. His words and actions have reflected it. Not just in the past, but throughout 2015 up until today. What he also understands is that racial justice is often symbiotic in various ways with economic issues. To not have a comprehensive plan to address multiple, symbiotic issues that often intertwine with one another is a great way to spin your wheels and accomplish very little overall. Thankfully, that’s not Bernie Sanders.
Dr. Stein should read this:
Just about everything you mentioned there (ending for-profit prisons, attacking police brutality, etc.) within your post are agendas that Bernie Sanders will accomplish symbiotically with our massive grassroots organizations that are growing ever larger as we speak.
Jill Stein hasn’t mustered that kind of powerful grassroots support and it’s not going to happen by running on a third party platform in 2016 as a potential spoiler. That’s why Sanders isn’t running on a third party ticket and that’s one of many reasons why I’ll be voting for Bernie Sanders.
If you also want to see a realistic shot in the future for third parties to grow like I do, you will too. Otherwise, you’re spinning your wheels with protest candidates while Republicans and establishment Democrats work together to keep the status quo entrenched. With a Sanders victory, doors will finally begin to open for more progressive third parties. If Clinton wins, the efforts will be stalled. If a Republican wins again, hang it up for decades yet again.
How long does Dr. Jill Stein think we should wait before we move beyond protest candidates and support someone who can win? Climate change isn’t waiting. Wealth and income disparity is growing. Police brutality isn’t being properly contained by the status quo. As a matter of fact, none of those issues will be properly handled by sending a protest candidate into battle. That’s why we need to get behind Sanders.
When you can find someone else as progressive as Bernie Sanders that inspires grassroots movements to help them fill arenas like this, let me know:
Until then, spinning wheels with weak “protest” strategies really don’t cut it. Our issues are dire and people are suffering and going to continue to suffer if we keep spinning our wheels as a nation. We just don’t have the luxury of time to chase pipe dreams while our world continues to fall apart. As I said, climate change isn’t waiting on humans to get our shit together. We can’t afford protest candidates.
Why is it after Brian Williams tells lies about his war travels, he’s forced out of his journalism job because he lacks credibility, however, when Hillary Clinton does the same thing and wants to run our country… we’re all just expected to put up with it?
There’s been the repeated argument from some progressives that there’s no reason to support Sanders because a win for him is impossible. It’s time for people to learn the truth that Bernie Sanders can win and is making the gains to prove it.
If Sanders continues at the rate he’s going, he will surpass Hilary Clinton in national polls in a matter of months.
In ONE MONTH, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has cut Hillary Clinton’s lead in HALF
I’ve not seen persuasive evidence of a “massive” grassroots movement. His message resonates, yes. That’s different than a coordinated national network of organizations strategically working for favorable resolution of one or more issues.
President Obama’s GOTV operation was larger and better organized before the first election. It practically dismantled itself after he won.
Sen. Sanders hasn’t assembled a comparable GOTV operation yet, let alone a multi-issue mass movement of progressive organizations.
You have to get well into double figures before it’s even positive, so even I am probably ‘worth’ more than the bottom 25%+ of Americans if you count negative net worth:
[quote=“Kimmo, post:359, topic:59394”]
Yeah, where are the ads from NGOs like the Red Cross and so on, urging folks to register as Democrats and vote Sanders in the primaries?
[/quote]I’m not sure I’m following you there. You think the Red Cross would do that? As far as I know, like many NGO charities they’re a 501(c)3 and aren’t allowed to do that. Then again, maybe you were being sarcastic?
Either way, it’s very clear that even though @lgoldberg is attempting to speak from authority on this matter, @lgoldberg has performed very little current research into the issue.
The Sanders GOTV organizing is already much more robust than Obama’s was at this time in his campaign. I should know, I was a part of Obama’s GOTV effort.
These massive crowds in both blue and red states aren’t forming via a magical crowd fairy.
• They aren’t forming via corporate media coverage. As a matter of fact, the corporate media has directly and passively attempted to thwart these crowds.
• They aren’t forming via Wall Street bankster money. Sanders and his supporters shun it, while Hillary Clinton embraces it.
• They aren’t forming via billionaire sugar daddies. Sanders shuns corrupt billionaire donors while Republicans whore themselves for them.
• They aren’t forming via Super PACs. Sanders shuns them as do most of his supporters.
They are forming via our collective hard work from grassroots organizations and activists throughout this nation.
Also, please see the July 29th event below.
Larger and better organized than what? Not the Sanders campaign.
Bernie Sanders Draws Army of 100,000 Volunteers to First Nationwide Organizing Event
GOTV operations were integral in this large event. You need more research on this matter.
This was over 100,000 supporters in about 3,500 locations in every state in the United States of America very early in the campaign. No other campaign has ever in the history of the United States pulled off something like that in the nascent stages of a campaign.
Many others and myself that are working with Sanders today also worked with some of the grassroots movements that helped Obama to win.
This grassroots campaign is much more massive than his was at this stage and that’s already being reflected in the fact that we’re drawing larger crowds than Obama did this early in the campaign as well.
[quote=“lgoldberg, post:358, topic:59394”]
It practically dismantled itself after he won.
[/quote]That’s incorrect. What happened is Obama threw the grassroots organizations that got him elected under the bus afterwards.
Sanders has addressed this very directly and I’ve already mentioned this fact multiple times throughout this thread. Here’s one example of many.
In other words, the difference between Obama and Sanders is that he’s going to work symbiotically with grassroots organizations before and after he’s elected. Sanders is going to help bring us into government very directly. Terrifying for the status quo establishment, I know…
Sanders’ stellar grassroots record backs this up and he’s already doing this today as well.
You really haven’t researched this matter. The July 29th event (that was heavily a GOTV operation) with over 100,000 supporters in about 3,500 locations around the United States is vastly larger than anything Obama had going for him in this stage of his campaign.
You’re also incredibly misinformed about the multi-issue, progressive organizations:
The list of powerful grassroots supporters for Sanders goes on and on…. I don’t have time to list all of them, but here’s just a few notable leaders, etc. from these following grassroots movements and organizations that have pledged to fight for Sanders (and are already doing so):
The Albany Project, Young Democratic Socialists, various Occupy movements in cities all over the nation including the very successful Occupy Sandy movement, Nonviolence International, (Ruckus Society), Overpass Light Brigade, Project Springboard, Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, Interoccupy, Chuy García Campaign, Girl Group Chicago, TRACERS, Changer, Not An Alternative, OWS Labor, CODEPINK, Sankofa, MayDay Space, Movement Net Lab, Down with Tyranny, Ready for Warren, Progressive Democrats of America, Occupy The Ballots, Coffee Party, Us Uncut, 99 Pickets, Occupy Faith, Occupy Judaism, Rockaway Wildfire, Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Gospel Choir, Films For Action, Upworthy, Left Labor Project …….
And on… and on…. and on…. and on…. and on…… and on…
AND…
Since I wrote that post above, very large and powerful grassroots organizations and union organizations have now added themselves to the campaign effort as well.
For one example of many, National Nurses United, which represents 185,000 nurses across the country.
In my opinion, you should further research Sanders and the massive grassroots efforts that surround him before further attempting to speak from authority on the matter. You’re near completely wrong on nearly every point you’ve made thus far.
I certainly don’t blame you, a lot of this is in flux and we’re moving incredibly rapidly in a time frame never before seen in modern, American politics.
Sanders and his grassroots support is literally evolving every week – and even daily and hourly in many regards.
I would certainly agree that much more GOTV efforts will be needed as time goes on, but that’s where we’re already headed. If you have some strategies and constructive criticism based upon proper research, we’d sincerely like to hear it. Or, better yet, put it into action yourself. We need all the help we can get going up against formidable, corporatist foes such as we are.
My experience is that it doesn’t really matter how many parties are as long as elections are determined by personal stories, personal attacks, some randomly selected religious ideas. There are a whole host of multi party systems where conservative corporate toadies take over. Corporate money can win by buying off 20% of the electorate rather than 45%
Oops, I didn’t think of that… how about this: a whole bunch of such charities get together and do an ad thanking folks for all their support in the past, and then say how the most anyone can do to help the cause at the moment is to be registered, and vote for the one candidate who actually looks like helping the poor. There’s no need to mention who, since it’s obvious. Finish by emphasising that government policy can render charities obsolete.
[quote=“lgoldberg, post:365, topic:59394, full:true”]
Less hyperbole might persuade — and recruit — more effectively.
[/quote]I presented clear evidence with sources that countered your rampant misinformation. We’re not a John Kerry campaign where we meekly sit and allow disinformation about our campaign to stand unanswered (and propagate). You stepped into the thread with untruths about Sanders’ campaign and I corrected you.
Our grassroots campaign at our core is based upon being honest and factual on issues while calling establishment half-truths and lies to task. It’s working out quite nicely for “recruitment” as I’ve already shown you with facts and evidence that clearly support that supposition. On the other hand, your post was littered with factual inaccuracies. Therefore, at this point, since you don’t have a response with your own facts and counter-evidence, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the matter until you do.
Meanwhile, you can chew on this fresh article if you don’t want to take my word on it:
How Bernie Sanders makes his mega-rallies
Bernie’s campaign has been channeling grassroots enthusiasm into massive rallies. Now, it’s working to whip all those supporters into a sophisticated political machine.
Ann Arbor might be a poor gage of Michigan’s voting patterns, being an island of blue in a gerrymandered red-ish state (state government is all Republican, senators and presidential votes are generally blue), but I have yet to see a Clinton bumper sticker. What I have seen is Sanders bumper stickers popping up. More every week.
Watching the national news last night, they’re trying to pin Clinton’s eroding support on her email “scandal.” Truth is more people are recognizing that the only difference between her and any of the Republicans is abortion.
Yeah, I’m working with others to get more of those out there for free just sitting in piles at coffee shops, etc. so it’s a no-brainer to grab one and stick it on your car, laptop, etc. – I think the added visibility will really help Sanders – as the more people tend to hear about him, the more they want to learn about him and the more they tend to support him after doing so.
[quote=“IronEdithKidd, post:367, topic:59394”]
Watching the national news last night, they’re trying to pin Clinton’s eroding support on her email “scandal.”
[/quote]Agreed, I think that’s only eroding her already weak support within red states. People sitting on the fence between her and Sanders aren’t going to pay it much attention unless it gets more legs, I figure. And, the Hillary faithful are probably going to chock it up to a partisan witch-hunt even if the email scandal does become more problematic for her.
Frankly, the more revelations there are about it, the more I question her judgement in regards to secrecy, etc. and even some of her own supporters are actually starting to get concerned about her decision-making with how she’s handling the backlash. It’s definitely no good for her, but I agree with you that it’s currently not an issue that’s going to make or break it for her with Sanders unless it goes wildly out of control for her in the future.
[quote=“IronEdithKidd, post:367, topic:59394”]
Truth is more people are recognizing that the only difference between her and any of the Republicans is abortion.
[/quote]That and her perpetual pandering is certainly hurting her untrustworthiness factor. It was a huge component to her loss against Obama with a somewhat complicit corporate media at his side for the latter half of his monied campaign. Fortunately for Sanders, even as most of the corporate media is hostile towards him, some of the Republican protectionist media will cover her transgressions nonetheless. The rest of it is up to his huge grassroots base to spread the truth about Hillary Clinton to her supporters.
Political pundits are like fad diets, an industry that somehow succeeds by being wrong. I honestly can’t imagine that people care about the email scandal. That’s the kind of thing that only raises concerns if you don’t trust the person to begin with. If that scandal has legs it shows that people didn’t really trust her and that her eroding support was already set to erode. Clinton surely has a large number of excited advocates and followers, but I think for most people she’s a default candidate - someone who would inevitably win so there was no point in worrying about it. Clinton’s eroding support is obviously due to people being excited about Sanders, but I also think it probably has a lot to do with people just being happy it’s not a coronation of a candidate that they were never really that into to begin with.
Or, it could very well get legs due to the fact she made mistakes in judgement. Time will tell.
However, in the meantime, I certainly wouldn’t count on the email scandal doing her much damage anywhere except in red states where she’s already fairly weak. That could very well work in Sanders’ favor to some extent in a tight race, but Sanders nor his supporters should make more of this email scandal than it currently is – or we’ll risk losing credibility ourselves if and when she’s vindicated and/or the corporate media decides to move along after being well-greased enough with her TV campaign ad money.
Either way, we should just let her and the Republican pot-stirrers fight it out and let the chips fall where they may. In the end, they both may end up looking badly while Sanders just stays out of it and benefits from both sides getting locked into untrustworthy, partisan bickering that many Americans are sick of already.
