It's really not surprising he isn't supporting others in this cycle. The results can be seen in the fact he is a career politician with no coalition.

And that's pretty sad considering he's been in Congress for a quarter century.

How silly.
Does he need your help?
Oh, right. You're voting the wrong way...never mind.

I don't think they expected the response they have had.

He's REALLY going to get things done if elected.

With Republican majorities.

The way that sellout Obama didn't.

Has he ever worked on behalf of the democratic party? I know he caucuses with them, but isn't that just a matter of convenience, not a bona fide commitment.

Chuy Garcia and Susan Sadlowski Garza

As usual Kossacks have some excellent diaries on this. This is just one. ..

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/2/1465551/-Why-didn-t-Bernie-Sanders-raise-any-money-for-the-DNC

Thanks for this!

Snip


Sanders has not been invited to raise money in this way.

The first thing to do is to ask the Sanders campaign themselves what they think of the situation.  

"We remain happy to work with them," Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said Saturday, when asked about joint fundraising efforts. "The party hasn't given us any dates for events.

This makes sense given the behavior of the DNC so far—preach equality and impartiality in public, but focus on electing Hillary behind the scenes. It echoes other situations where the DNC and the Sanders campaign have tossed the blame back and forth—like when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz claimed the Sanders campaign hadn’t shown the DNC the info they needed to reinstate VAN access, and then Jeff Weaver held up his cell phone (~12:30) to the camera to show an email he had earlier sent to the DNC with the info they needed. It also reminds me of earlier comments by the campaign I can’t place, where they implied that the ball was in the DNC’s court and they were simply waiting for instructions that never came. To say the least, the two are not on the same page. 

 If he were invited, its doubtful he could make it work.

Clinton and Sanders have very different styles of raising money. Clinton headlines many ticketed events where patrons are often asked to pay a high price—sometimes the entire $2700 limit for one ticket—for the privilege of seeing her speak. By contrast, all of Bernie’s rallies are free and open to the public, and the campaign does not ask for donations at them, instead relying on strong online donations. He doesn’t schmooze with the elites and ask them for money, or attend blockbuster ticketed events with top-billing. He says his message, and if you like it you can go online and donate. In fact, the few times Sanders has attended paid fundraisers, he’s been treated like a hypocrite. It’s doubtful Sanders could solicit cash for the DNC the way Hillary has. His constituents donate online, and as you can find in his reddit community, people make a point of finding the service with the lowest overhead that delivers the most cash directly to Sanders. It seems unlikely, especially given the hard feelings many supporters have towards the DNC, that Sanders has much hope of raising any significant funds for them. The establishment Dems who support Hillary are more likely to support the DNC and donate to it. Additionally...

Hillary’s donors have a lot more money to give.

The average donation to the Sanders campaign is always changing but hovers around $27-30 dollars. Clinton, by contrast, typically doesn’t release her average, no doubt because it would be significantly higher. Instead she focuses on statistics about what percentage of her donations were small, or what percentage of her donors were women (though Bernie has more female donors in total), rather than the money itself. But it can’t conceal the fact that Hillary's donors give more, and more of them give the maximum amount. When your wealthy supporters have already given the most they legally can to you, what more is there to do? Donate to the DNC, which, if Hillary wins the nomination (and even if she doesn’t, given the DNC’s favoritism), is like donating to Hillary a second time. If Bernie were to headline a fundraiser for this crowd, would there even be anyone in the audience who supported him? Bernie hasn’t just been avoiding this type of event with the DNC—he’s been avoiding it, period, refusing to raise funds for himself through elite fundraisers.  

Hillary has a super-PAC to help her out.

When you’re the wealthiest person in the race and you’ve raised more money than any other candidate, its not going to bring you down to take a little time and effort to raise money for the DNC. But its even easier to do this with the cushion of a super-PAC. Last quarter, Clinton raised $77 million and her super-PAC raised an additional $20 million, while Sanders raised $40 million and had no money from a super-PAC. While super-PACs cannot spend this money directly on candidate expenses, they are free to spend it on advertising. This saves Hillary Clinton $20 million dollars on ads that Bernie has to pull directly from his campaign funds. Since Clinton raised $18 million for the DNC, and since her super-PAC likely raised much more than $20 million this quarter, she’s got a big cushion for down-ticket fundraising that Bernie lacks. Her greater name recognition, and all the other advantages she enjoys, also give her more time to devote to party politicking. If Bernie takes time out of his schedule to fundraise for the DNC, it’s time he’s not spending meeting voters and getting his name and campaign out there. It’s also time he’s not spending in the Senate, where he has a full-time job and is one of the most active Senators. Its also important to note that Sanders has in fact helped other Democrats fundraise before, such as a letter for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that helped bag $1 million. 

Snip

and that requires money.

All that amounts to is a bunch of excuses.

If you'd like to make an OP about infrastructure issues that's fine but that's not what this OP is about.

Her "fundraising" is a mechanism to buy endorsements with other people's money.

Response #10 provides a solid explanation.

Senator Sanders's approach to politics is, obviously, very different from those who believe that money is the most important thing. I think that is a good thing.

Money isn't the most "important" thing, but it's what helps get Dems elected and builds and maintains the infrastructure.

Look around, Sanders supporters want to pretend their candidate isn't part of the "Establishment". What they really mean is they mostly want to waltz in and take over what others have spent decades building and fighting for.

is important. And Bernie has role-modeled the correct way to raise money.

How nice that she's going to pull more folks into the corporate umbrella.
Oligarch lover!
More powe$ to you!

You should probably do a little more research before responding.

People without vision have no place in 21st century America.
Wat else is there to say?

The Citizens United decision is best known for allowing corporations to spend money from their general treasuries on political campaigns -- so long as they don't coordinate directly with the candidates they are backing. Nonprofits are corporations, too, and are subject to the same new rules as for-profit corporations. So, with the Citizens United decision, nonprofits were suddenly free to begin spending money to directly advocate for and against specific candidates. Previously, a group like Swiftboat Veterans could create advertisements that encouraged voters to consider the record of a candidate, as it did with 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, but could not urge viewers to vote for or against him. Citizens United changed that.

So tell me what you're not saying.

The word "demagogue," of course, comes from a Greek root, which as Malcolm X used to point out, translates quite literally to " a popular leader who guides the people."

(Additional comments withheld for obvious reasons.)