Ruined it before it even started.

They did not want Weaver, and Weaver wanted to go after the “dark money” that Sanders condemned for lacking transparency. Those who left wanted it to stay a grass roots operation taking only small donations from individuals. Weaver wants to go "fundraising" and go after the big money donors.

Only the rich would benefit if Sanders supporters as a movement are dispersed or expected to be nothing but disconnected individuals working for change as disconnected individuals.

No one who cares about the values of the Democratic Party and no one among the groups the Democratic Party exists to fight for would benefit from the dissolution of the Sanders movement. That wouldn't help women, it wouldn't help people of color, it wouldn't help LGBTQ people and it wouldn't help working people(a group that is strongly represented in the first four groups I listed there).

It is to the good of everyone who wants social justice AND economic justice for the Sanders movement to be kept together as a distinct group.

I think he was flat out brilliant as Sanders campaign manager. It's the reason I attacked him relentlessly. lol. I put him on the same level as Rahm. Never want the guy elected as dog catcher but am happy as hell he organizes on our side.

He was campaign manager:

He ignored early black states
He continued to attack Hillary after she had won
He continued to spout utter nonsense on the airwaves
He created division and conspiracy theories

Mostly, he lost Bernie the election. Bernie picked up steam because of Bernie. He lost because of incompetence in strategy and Weaver created division in the party. Much like Trump is doing, he focused on the white states and white votes. He then encouraged rhetoric as if there was a chance to win after May, and even after June; instilling conspiracy theories of corruption and voter fraud, so Bernie supporters felt cheated instead of the fact Hillary gained more votes.

If we weren't going against the stupidity of Trump, Jeff Weaver could have caused serious harm to this election.

Moreover, the man in just an idiot and I don't like idiots in charge of anything.

Has done well for him in the past, too. What you mention all rests on the shoulders of Sanders. He flat out beat all expectations. There is no doubt about that.

and her report was that it was geared towards down ballot elections.

I have a problem with Weaver and Jane Sanders running it.

No???

The organization’s board also remains in flux, but Sanders’ wife, Jane Sanders, will be stepping down from her post as chair, sources added.

Seems odd that they put that tidbit at the very end.

It seems pretty clear she was getting a commission on all the campaign's ad buys, likely to the tune of several million bucks. She made a similar arrangement several campaigns back. All of Bernie's ads were bought through an agency run out of a house in a suburb outside Washington that keeps everything secret. Bernie's campaign manager was apparently getting 7.5% on every buy, but part of that may have gone to Jane.

If you want to educate, it can be c3. Many groups have both.

I am not a huge fan of Weaver either, but not sure how the "core staff" hopes to accomplish significant legislative change without a c4 designation.

challenge corporate politics is necessary, but tough to establish. It is no surprise that there is opposition to leadership which was in charge of a losing effort.

An organization that will ignore its basic philosophy in order to put itself in the chips is exactly what Bernie said he hated about the Democratic Party. Now his new project has become the thing they hated the most. An organization dependent on secret big money donors for its very survival.

a quasi-party which doesn't have the state-by-state structure and clear & concise policies which offer Americans a real alernative. I recommended any efforts to foster an aggressive counterweight which will move (or wrench) the Party into an at least somewhat liberal-left alternative. As it stands now, LBJ would be considered radical. And as it stands now, the Party is worrying about getting a bare numerical majority in Congress against a spittle-flying far right which some around here thinks is, variously, falling apart, collapsing, or splitting apart. Hell, it might be evolving into an even more extreme, better funded, and aggressive force to go after the Party.

Seems these folks may be competition with the organization Brand New Congress, run by former Bernie staffers.
http://www.brandnewcongress.org

Anyhow, I'll share my thoughts with other guests tonight, and hopefully tomorrow, I post my feedback.

Meanwhile, I'm volunteering some time for the re-election of the NY state senator in my district as he's facing a challenge from a 'Puke with big $$$ connections.

by the way years ago drove past clintons shack in westchester county new york.......bet you that was worth more than 600k

He was in New Hampshire endorsing Clinton, then he was at the DNC endorsing Clinton and just a few weeks ago he wrote an Op-ed in the LA Times endorsing Clinton. Aside from getting on his knees and begging forgiveness for daring to run in the primaries, what more do you want him to do?

.... and ensuring Trump didn't win? I am pretty sure I saw him on TV saying exactly that. But correct me if I am wrong.

Like I said, aside from begging her forgiveness, I doubt Bernie can do anything to satisfy some people.

And a lot of supporters don't seem to be happy with him for various reasons.
t
However, I can't point to one speech he has made on Hillary's behalf since he endorsed her. That a long way from traveling all over the country on her to support her as he promised.

On the other hand, I am not being critical - just pointing out facts. There could be several good explanations including one where the Clinton campaign no longer thinks they need him.

willing to give Bernie the benefit of the doubt right now.

At this time, so now I do agree he needs to keep his promise and get out there for Hillary.

Gov. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) is trying to unseat Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH).

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/08/24/us/politics/ap-us-campaign-2016-sanders.html?_r=0

Weaver said he wanted 'flexibility.' I think that means flexibility to accept big donations.

I'd have preferred if "Our Revolution" were a regular PAC, which can accept a maximum of $5,000 per year per person.

PACs distribute money to candidates and groups while a c4 can lobby directly on issues. I dunno, just distributing cash to candidates is not much of a revolution, and you will lose that game anyway since the big money, by definition, has so much more than we could ever hope to generate.

The difference between a 501c4 and a Super PAC is that the majority (50.1%) of the activities of a 501c4 need to be social welfare (not promoting or opposing candidates).

I'd have preferred if "Our Revolution" were a regular PAC.

I could be missing something. It quacks, I think.

The group isn't asking for subsidies for special interests or pushing for anything that harms the greater good.

Nice try, though.

your gushing bombast aside, it is a financial organization intended to raise large amounts of cash from anonymous donors. It is exactly what Sanders decried during the primaries.

It's right-wing to want the Sanders movement to die out, as you clearly do. No progressive good would come of Sanders volunteers dispersing and just trying to be generic individual Democrats. They wouldn't be able to do anything to effect any real change if that happens.

"It's right-wing" to disagree with you?

The Democratic Party keeping the Presidency and gaining the House and Senate is the best chance of effecting real change, not Sander's rhetorical fund raising operation.

Keeping that going is crucial to electing HRC and taking Congress...and at the same time, election results aren't the only things that matter.

Got it.

Super Pacs are organizations whose donations come from the wealthy. An organization run by small donors driven by ideals and the dream of a better world(something no CEO wants unless he can make money off of it) and with progressive values can never be a super pac.

Super Pacs are supported by the wealthy, driven by short-term individual self-interest and are always right wing.

If I understand correctly, it's just as bad, if not worse.

When it's money raised from small donors trying to achieve victory for the causes they believe in, it's a totally different and BETTER thing.

There's no way there can be anything bad here.

Unlimited amounts, donors anonymous, tax-exempt, not originally meant for partisan purposes but has been perverted? Broke promise that Weaver would not be involved?

What's not to find objectionable and lacking integrity?

I was in, but now I'm out.

Also IIRC:

It's supposed to be social welfare, not political as in candidates.
The concept has been corrupted such that they can spend up to 49% on partisan politics.
Contributions are unlimited and can be anonymous.

Subject to correction - this is what I think I remember from when I looked it up.

Plus I heard it was promised Weaver would not be involved, and then he was.

I just don't like the smell of it.

I just got a letter and a couple bumper stickers from PDA, possibly in response to this. I'm going to look into them further.

You know I had my issues with Weaver and co, and I think that having him involved just opens this whold thing up to failure.

This type of organization was never intended for partisan politics.

Yeah, it's been corrupted for a long time, but I hoped Bernie was better than that.

But he is just a politician. Best not to place too much hope in politicians

Good ones and bad ones, but politicians nonetheless.

After all, they run the country. And I have nothing but gratitude for the good ones. As for Bernie, nobody's perfect. But some come closer than others.

https://m.

I just gave them some $$$ in response to an email.

No taxes, and they don't have to say where the money is coming from. I might be wrong, but didn't Bernie have a problem with this kind of thing when he was running for the nomination? Should we be concerned about this? I mean Karl Rove had one of these also.

All we heard during the campaign was about "fighting the establishment" and now they've established a 501c4?

Not good.

Anyone knows that a "good" revolution that fights against the "establishment", can't become part of said "establishment" to try and fix the problems of that "establishment". I think Weaver is a problem.

as it has been perverted.

I'm really disappointed to have Bernie associated with that.

NT

is your second question. We've all SEEN how the Tea Party started out, and what it did to the Republican Party in the long term. We cannot allow that to happen to the Democratic Party.

... and that's very disappointing to see.

but definitely lacking in integrity, as in "not of a piece with the talk."

The problem with the Tea Party wasn't that they were pushing for candidates that aligned with them ideologically - that's pretty much the root of democracy. It's that their ideology is nuts. I don't see how anyone can pretend that a group pushing for action on climate change is anything like a group pushing saying climate change is a hoax (for example). People (rightly) complain about the media creating a false equivalence between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party; there's no reason to do it to ourselves.

However, when they started out, they didn't SOUND like lunatics. That only started to be seen AFTER they were getting elected. We already have enough polarization and refusal to compromise and work in a bipartisan fashion due to the Tea Party assholes. We don't need to have something similar happen with us. Without bipartisanship, government is ineffective and gets NOTHING done.

If it's a type of group that was never intended to get into partisan politics. I don't care that "everybody is doing it." I thought Bernie was better than that.

In my opinion.

It should be called the peoples revolution. Not "OUR REVOLUTION". Sounds like it is their revolution and we are no part of it. I find that divisive.

It would be nice to have an election based on issues for a change.

But all we got was slander, lies, & broad brushed
one-liners & name calling. Yes there's a reason why the direction of the campaign clung to that path.
It wasn't for a lack of qualifications & critical issues from the one candidate who excells in both areas.

She survived it all. As did those who came before her.



http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/inspired-illustration-feminism-at-work-pays-tribute-to-pioneers-who-moved-womens-history-forward/

Thank you.

Nope.

From what I understand, he has worked with Bernie forever. Obviously Bernie trusts him, so why so much hatred for him in these parts?

But I don't trust anyone just because he does. No secondhand trust for me.

As I have heard it, it was promised Weaver wouldn't be involved, and then he was.

and "they" are planning to take it too the streets.

That would be the most progressive thing this country's seen for many years.
Imagine that! A functioning society for all Americans.

VOTE DEM.
GOTV

Thanks a lot.

...for HRC and for NH Democratic US Senate candidate Gov Maggie Hassan.

Pay them no mind.

1) Bernie has endorsed HRC. That puts your first question to rest. It goes without saying that Our Revolution will do the same.

2) No one will be primarying anyone just for being "establishment Democrats". The only people getting primaried, if anyone gets primaried at all, are Democrats who are voting to the right of HRC and against most Democratic proposals. I hope you're not arguing that once elected, a Democratic politician is entitled to automatic-renomination-for-life. A challenge to a Democratic incumbent in the primaries is the ONLY way to hold that Democrat accountable for her or his actions. There aren't any seats anymore where a Democrat has to define her or himself as being hostile to a Democratic president just to get re-elected.

And if we're talking about DWS, she deserves a primary challenge because she is right-wing on payday loan companies, federal subsidies to private prisons, and the drug war. None of those are side issues and none of the handful of progressive stances she takes on other issues outweigh them.

Let's be honest, the Sanders movement to dissolve-a demand you have no reasonable expectation will occur. The continued existence of Sanders supporters as a distinct organization is not a threat to the Democratic party, and THIS election will be the last one ever in which it will be legitimate in any way to simply expect everyone on the left side of the spectrum to back the Democratic ticket no matter what. And we need a large group to keep economic justice and grassroots social justice issues on the frontburner, because the natural inclination of any Democratic administration will be to avoid touching those issues and focus instead only on policies on which there is no political risk...i.e., policies that won't make a difference in anyone's lives. This isn't to say that Democratic administrations are bad...just that they need to be pressured from progressive in order to get them to actually carry out progressive policies. If it hadn't been for constant pressure from the LGBTQ community, for example, President Obama would never have endorsed same-sex marriage while in office(he'd have waited until after he left, when it would no longer have meant anything).

Our Revolution will be working hard to elect a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House. Can't you just be happy that they will be here to do the work involved in that?

SCOTUS to make any progress and a senate too.
Now is not the time to be a one issue voter. We have to support our entire coilition to make progress.

There doesn't need to be a promise that no Democratic incumbent should ever face a primary challenge.

And no one has been challenged in the primaries this year or any time recently over a SINGLE issue, or even only over a few.

safe Dem seats instead of trying to win in tight races over one issue, yeah I got a problem with it. Aren;t there two groups now? Would love to read more about what each are doing.

1) Work hard to take seats FROM the right wing, at all levels(this goes without saying);

2) Challenge those incumbent Dems who have a history of voting way too far to the right of the party. There aren't much of any seats our party currently holds that we can ONLY hold by accepting the perpetual renomination of Dems who base their whole career on trying to stop a Democratic president from getting anything but the most watered-down, neutered versions of her or his proposals through Congress, or on blocking measures the overwhelming majority of the Democratic caucuses in the House or Senate support.

A primary challenge is the ONLY way to hold that kind of bad Dem accountable. Without that, the bad type of Dem will be reinforced in the arrogant delusion that she or he is doing the party an undeserved favor by lowering his or herself to associating with the likes of us.

Hell I have already narrowed it down as to which senators campaigns I am working on this fall.
Nothing about the splinter group either? I guess it's going to be an uphill battle for either of them without Sanders. Which sucks.

who were not involved before, especially young people. It's a great thing, and we should all be thankful.

I think they are doing it wrong.

https://m.

I just REALLY like the idea of Bernie continuing to organize; and, I would imagine the purpose would be to work WITH Hilary for greater good.

More power thrown into GOOD. That's what I want.

You will not hear from this group again