Even the fact that the question is asked HERE on a Democratic board... the fact that what I wrote is not understood and deeply felt is very disappointing to me.

I feel like we have been going backwards...

To imagine there was a time, in my parent's generation when intellectual discussion and political debates about the morality of redistributing wealth and communism and socialism as an attempt to redress the ethical dilemma of inequality was something that existed...

We have been bought and sold out while we were rah-rah -ing for our "team".

We got sold a sports competition, a political olympics. We bought into it but forgot what it was supposed to mean.

or pretending to.

money on our government. And anyone who dismisses it is going to be surprised at how important an issue it is to the American people. I believe over 80% want money out of politics.

for a single political campaign is not going to cut it.

seemed to be talking about Hillary a few weeks ago, that people are not going to trust politicians who take this money.

Which is why IF he runs, I am assuming he will join Bernie in refusing those huge donations.

this is why we have a primary. I wish everyone would relax a little with the outrage. I am a Bernie supporter and this is one of the reasons why I don't support Hillary. Let's save the hatred for the republicans or whatever they call themselves this week.

Great post!

Integrity matters. Anyone that takes that kind of money, in amount and how it was "earned," that has event after event that any average working person could never afford to attend, and then speaks about over turning Citizens United and changing campaign rules, is a phony with no integrity.

They are the people who can afford to lose an election based on the "principle" of not raising money, proudly embracing socialism, and getting crushed by the GOP. They don't have to worry about, say, losing the SS benefits they rely on for living. Instead, they worry about not getting into the fancy fundraisers.

It's ironic, of course, because there is exactly one way to overturn Citizens United and get the huge money out of politics. Elect a Dem, and nominate some liberal justices. That's it. There is no other way. In fact, for all the talk of "Hillary is the same as a Republican", Citizens United and campaign finance reform is one clear issue where there is a huge difference between Hillary and the GOP, and where the differences between Hillary and Bernie are minimal.

Losing the election for the sake of principle will not only hurt the poor and vulnerable in very concrete ways. It will also perpetuate the not-getting-invited-to-fundraisers problem that so troubles a certain group of upper middle class white males.

to Hillary make up 19% of the total.

Large donor contributions; up $2,700 to Bernie make up 1.20% of the total, large contributions to Hillary make up 62.90% of the total.

*Super pac raised funds towards Bernie's issues are 0 super pac raised funds to Hillary's issues are twenty million and three hundred thousand dollars.

9 out of the top ten donors to Bernie are unions, 6 out of the top ten donors to Hillary are banks, perhaps these banks don't have white males at the top of their food chains, but I doubt it.

http://usuncut.com/news/this-meme-reveals-the-stark-difference-between-bernie-and-hillary/

That's one of the reason that, as polls clearly demonstrate, his support is highest among wealthier white males, whereas Hillary has a much larger gap with lower income groups, women, and minorities. Wealthier white males can afford to lose the election. People who stand to lose their healthcare or livelihood if the GOP wins have bigger things to worry about than Hamptons fundraisers.

resources, not to mention much more name recognition Bernie seems to be closing the gap.

Just scroll down to the second graph for a nice illustration.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

The reason this is happening is as the OP points out, the people are fed up with having the best government that money can buy.

but if by some miracle he does become the nominee, the GOP will drown him in ads and won't have the funds to be able to defend himself. And then the GOP will win, and Citizens United will stay on the books.

If raising money wasn't hugely important in winning campaigns, then politicians wouldn't spend so much time doing it. Sure, you can get away with not raising much money if you're running in just Vermont, but a presidential election is a whole different game.

Raising money used to be important to get your message out but it has gone way past that point, the system has been corrupted.

Bernie will pull voters from Republican ranks, the angry and disaffected ones, being misdirected as to who the villain is behind their misery, Bernie's message will reach many of them.

Bernie is not alone in this either, growing numbers of people have his back and we're amplifying his message, this is rapidly becoming a movement, and it will take a movement to change our nation's dead end direction on a multitude of social crises.

The reality is, you can't compete in a national presidential race without money. And you also can't beat the GOP nationally if you are a self-declared socialist.

There is nothing that can't be done in politics if enough people put their minds to it, Bernie has the right messages for the times and his track record matches up with his words.

impediment that being socialist is.

Contrary to the myth, Obama didn't come "out of nowhere" in 2008. His first appearance on the national stage was at the 2004 convention, and even at that point, before he was a US senator, everyone already knew he was a star in the making. A lot of influential Democrats were backing his presidential run before even 2007, precisely because they realized his potential. Obama oozes charisma and stage presence, and he also was able to compete with Hillary in fundraising.

Basically, Obama is a once-in-a-generation politician. If he had some secret twin brother out there, he would easily be the best candidate this time around also.

As the Wikipedia page says, "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy..."

That's all it is, and it's all around us. So, Sanders is a socialist. And so is everyone else in the US, unless someone can honestly say they are opposed to everything in that Daily Kos article.

Last edited Tue Aug 25, 2015, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

being elected to the Presidency before President Obama was elected.

Even today; after Obama, I would wager there is some level of disadvantage, though the mountain isn't as steep.

I agree President Obama is a "once in a generation politician" and Bernie Sanders isn't and never was.

Bernie is a once in a generation political leader that has championed the causes and messages in one form or another for over fifty years to which he is now running for President on and Bernie has always stayed fixed on his North Star.

electorate views certain characteristics of candidates. Socialist is the very least appealing, below things like gay, atheist, or muslim.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

if it had a broad spectrum of political identities ie; conservative, communist, fascist, liberal, libertarian, nazi neo-liberal, progressive, etc.

It gives no political definition as to the meaning of the word, overwhelming majorities of the American People agree with socialism, they just don't know it.

Bernie is filling out the meaning of what being a "Democratic Socialist" is and the people are responding.

The nation is moving left.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128042150

And the political definition of the word doesn't matter. People who won't consider voting for a "socialist" aren't interested in the distinctions between different kinds of socialism.

If Bernie gets into the GE, the GOP attack ads write themselves. Let's see.

"Bernie Sanders started his political career with the radical left wing Liberty Union Party in Vermont. He has served in congress as a proud socialist his entire career, too liberal even for the Democratic party -- cut to video of Sanders saying 'I am a socialist' -- America can't afford to turn to socialism -- cut to video of people starving somewhere."

And that will it.

Like I said, the worst of all the categories polled.

Yes, people like a lot of the policies Sanders is proposing, but as soon as the word "socialist" pops up, it's no go. Which is why a candidate that supports many of the same policies (e.g. Hillary) but doesn't say "I'm a socialist" is the way to go.

you would see the people aren't knee jerk buying in to labels anymore.

They're interested in the issues and policies that the candidates are proposing which can change and better their lives.

I believe much of this transformation has to do with the Internet's growing influence.

It helped Obama come to power and now it's working for Bernie.

But not today. The electorate isn't made up exclusively of millenials.

Also, I don't see any evidence from those polls that people actually care about issues more or less than in the recent past, or that they aren't "knee jerk buying into labels anymore". It just says that when you go down issues, the electorate is more liberal than the people they elect. But it's been this way for a long time, and there's no indication whatsoever that Bernie has the key to changing this long-time reality of American elections.

Obama got elected for a number of reasons, one of them being that he is one of the most inspiring and charismatic public speakers of our time. He also was able to raise huge amounts of money. He was liberal, but still mainstream enough to have broad appeal. And unlike Bernie, he didn't call himself a socialist. In fact, he said very clearly that he was not a socialist.

Gen Xers to make an immediate impact on influencing the older generations.

The Internet is having an increasing impact as well, there have been many inspiring, charismatic politicians that never made it to the White House, history is littered with them and they didn't have the additional social anchor of being black.

Obama raised huge sums of money in his first run primarily because of the Internet.

All manner of things have been a certain way until they weren't anymore, the shape and scope of American Journalism being just one.

Instead of talking the talk, Bernie walks the talk.

Obama just talked about it.

Therefore Bernie is even better than Obama. By miles. People have been looking for change for a very long time. Bernie brings about change.

It's a shame that "socialism," which is all around us, has been vilified and is so misunderstood. We're all socialists.

And it's a shame that the (s)election process isn't really determined by "we the people." As you point out, Ron Paul has a huge following (as does his son, Rand). I think those folks are terribly misguided and that their hero Ayn Rand was a despicable person, but as with Sanders (and Kucinich before him), the powers that be are also opposed to the Pauls (largely due to their views on banking and foreign policy).

Try something new.

I'm not "trying" anything. Lefties haven't laid the groundwork necessary for someone such as Sanders to be nominated. Hopefully Sanders will spur a grassroots movement and inspire lefties to create an organized Left by taking over local governments and working outward from there. But as far as Sanders actually being nominated, I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment if you're counting on that to happen.

"lefties"



BTW, wouldn't ID'ing Sanders supporters as the left make you the right?

Thanks also for your advice, which is akin to the M.O. of early Libertarians. However, we are not starting a new party, so it's not very apt.

You seem confused. I'm a Sanders supporter and very much a lefty. That doesn't keep me from realizing that the dominant neoliberal faction will never allow Sanders to be the nominee.

knocking ourselves out donating and working and trying to get others to do the same.

You may want to re-think your definition of supporting a candidate for POTUS.

People on the left don't say "Lefties". We just don't.

Don't worry though. Chalk it up to experience and next time you come back, you won't make the same mistake!

Lefties, progressives, liberals, democratic socialists...it doesn't matter. People use all different terms. As Bernard Chazelle wrote, "America has lefties but no left." And that's my point. Plenty in the US subscribe to left wing viewpoints, as made clear in this article, but there really hasn't been an organized Left strong enough to combat the rise of neoliberalism and the rightward shift of both major political parties.

Bernie has the ground game going, and Bernie is already encouraging and inspiring people to run for local offices as a progressive.

I'm a Sanders supporter and agree with him when he says, "...no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country. They will not be able to suceed becuase the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that no president alone can stand up to them. That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality. And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly: It is not just about electing Bernie Sanders for president, it is about creating a grassroots political movement in this country."

I hope like hell that his campaign does spur a grassroots political movement all across the US. So that one day someone like Sanders can get nominated. In the meantime, I think the "power of corporate America" will prevent him from being nominated.

As Robert Jensen wrote several years ago, in this article, "No matter who votes in elections, powerful unelected forces—the captains of industry and finance—set the parameters of political action. Voting matters, but it matters far less than most people believe, or want to believe."

At this time, people like Sanders don't fit within those parameters. Those on the left must get organized to the point where those "powerful unelected forces" are made impotent. That time has not yet come.

Some are 'supporters' longer than others.

in no way suggests a lack of support for that candidate.

Do you somehow equate predicting that Sanders won't win with not supporting Sanders? If so, you'll have to explain. Because it seems quite obvious that a person can support someone without believing that person will win. Those are clearly not mutually exclusive.

.... For them would be my guess.

It's just rest of us wondering WTF Clinton is raising money instead of focusing on issues and hiding from the public.

Get your talking points straight.

Hasn't been fixed yet and every year we get older and older.

None of the justices in the majority have retired yet, which means it has been literally impossible to change it with anything short of a constitutional amendment.

The 2016 election is the first real chance to get CU overturned. It's still not a guarantee, because we don't know when exactly each justice will retire. But we do know that if we lose the election (for example, if enough "progressive" white males decide to sit on the sidelines out of spite because Hillary didn't invite them to the Hamptons), then we will probably lose the court for a few decades. And that means big money ruling politics for the forseeable future.

candidates began to turn down matching funds in exchange for private fundraising the whole shebang.

Until then, almost all candidates accepting the matching funds program for Presidential campaigns.

It started with Steve Forbes, an uber wealthy republican, but then Hillary and Obama followed suit and it now appears to be the way things are going.

So no, the discussion does not begin and end with Citizens United.

and CU stays on the books, then nothing will change on the campaign finance front for decades.

Which means that, by far, the most important thing for anyone interested in campaign finance reform is putting a Democrat in the White House. And that in turns means raising a lot of money.

it...never do.

We need to change it by electing someone who categorically rejects it on principle.

of that pre-CU. And with CU in place, there's no hope of any meaningful reform. In fact, limiting non-SuperPAC money with CU still in place will make things worse, because then it will really be a small group of super-rich people donating millions who run the show. One reason Hillary will be able to compete in the GE is that, despite the Koch brothers and SuperPAC money which will favor the GOP, she is able to raise huge amounts of normal campaign donations.

In terms of campaign finance, by far the most important thing is electing a Dem in 2016.

Either way, the point is the same. It's the story of the snake and the old woman crossing the river over and over again.

If you don't know the story, it ends with the old woman getting bitten and the snake saying "Well you KNEW I was a snake."

Wisdom.

Or maybe the drug addict metaphor works better for you.

"I'll just take ONE MORE hit and then I'm done! I swear!"

the GE either, but for the primaries they are even worse.

If someone wins the presidency, they don't face any more primary elections, so even if they are somehow "addicted" to non-matched primary funds, that will be their last "hit" regardless of the laws.

More importantly, silly metaphors have nothing to do with the political reality, which is that Citizens United and campaign finance reform hinges on a Dem winning in 2016, and going underfunded against the GOP will accomplish nothing except for ensuring that the big money domination of politics continues for decades.

The logic is simple, and unimpeachable, which is why instead of addressing it you are talking about snakes and drug addicts.

Presidents are elected with votes.

1% of the richest in the country own as much wealth as 50% of the poorest.

BUT... conversely, in terms of votes, the rich are DESTROYED by numbers.

So tell me, what is the ACTUAL need for money?

It is votes we need and once we stop playing on the side of the elite, we will get those votes.

You may say I'm a dreamer... except for the fact that the math on this is fucking simple. And overwhelming. I mean massively tipped.

You ever wonder why no matter how high the wealth disparity gets we still wind up with a basic 50/50 split in votes all this time? I am curious... why do YOU think that is, Dan?

and are swayed by things like TV and radio ads. Money is also needed for GOTV. If money wasn't so important, politicians wouldn't spend so much time and energy raising it.

I have no idea what you mean by "stop playing on the side of the elite". Obama is already not playing on the side of the elite. And if you think that if a candidate refuses to raise money in significant amounts, suddenly the working class is going to flock to them, you are sadly mistaken.

Performed by a clever concoction of issues and collusion.

Like companies agreeing to take turns accepting contracts so they can shut out the competition.

The real truth is that it IS about economics. The haves and the have nots. And the real game is keeping it that way.

Oh, I know. I am a wild-eyed crazy. I will never convince you. That's fine. I don't expect to.

The 50/50 happens because the parties adapt. There's no collusion, it's just both parties maneuvering independently. You really think that the top Dems and Reps (who are barely on speaking terms) get together and say "so we're going to split the issues in this way to make sure that the working class stays divided"? That's absurd.

What makes it more absurd is the fact that the Dems generally and Obama specifically favor policies that help lower income Americans at the expense of the very wealthy. For example, Obamacare, which provides health coverage for millions of people, subsidized by taxes that fall mainly on the rich.

You see it as all about economics (and so does Bernie) but not everyone else does (as Bernie and his supporters have recently discovered). And even people who see it that way aren't all in favor of democratic socialism. In fact, there are plenty of people who see it all as economic, and are hard core Ayn Rand libertarians.

so that they win either way.

It is INSANITY to suggest that their influence extends into both parties.

I am an absolute UFO-believing nut!

People employed by corporations do, and (obviously) not everyone who works for the same company donates to the same candidate or party.

You win this sub-thread hands-down!

There is NO problem with Hillary drinking bubbly with the top 1% and collecting as much money as she needs to win from corporations (Yes, Dan, despite it being illegal, they DO find a way to get around it! Shocking, I know). There IS no quid-pro-quo, or at least not one that can be proven in a court of law and that's all that really matters, eh.

As long as she will change it magically when she wins, it's all good. I'm down with that!

All that stuff about sleeping with the dogs getting you fleas is pure hogwash for the suckers at the bottom anyway.

Let's take this son-of-a-bitch all the way and make the losing bastards suck our fumes!

We'll stomp them like the champions we are.

While it's technically illegal for a corporation to donate directly to a candidate, corporations do in fact donate massive sums of money to campaigns. And they hedge their bets. If you were to look at a list of the top donors to both Obama and McCain in 2008, for instance, you would see a lot of overlap. You'd also see that Obama got around a million bucks from Goldman Sachs, who also donated a (far less) substantial sum to McCain (on account of Obama being a heavy favorite following 8 years of Dubya). Who became Sec. of the Treasury? A Goldman Sachs employee, of course. And then there's the revolving door between regulators (such as the FDA) and the corporations that need regulating. The foxes are watching the hen house. The US political system is so corrupt that it's essentially broken.

You can find all kinds of info about campaign "donations" at https://www.opensecrets.org/.

sry.

Reference: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7107033

Of course.

Talk to us when you actually address the OP.

Clinton supporters apparently are ok with CU if it helps their candidate. Sounds like situational ethics.

Same crap being thrown out there for decades now. And it has done nothing but gotten us into a deeper hole with a larger divide between the wealthy and everyone else.

Sick to death of the third way bullshit perpetuated by the wealthy.

She was out at the Iowa state fair. She spoke to a small group of health care workers. She has had town halls. She meets with many ordinary people. That is what her campaign is focusing on at this stage.

Stop mischaracterizing her. And if she knows how to raise money, good for her! She is going to need it to fight those backing the republics.

of ordinary people rather than doing huge rallies.

"THEM"!!!

Speak for yourself.

who are usually bearing large checks for her campaign.

For some reason I can not remember candidate Clinton having to change to larger venues to speak to her contributors or even her supporters this election cycle.

Only one candidate is packing them in so to speak.

The PEOPLE are making their choice the !% has made theirs.

Follow the money America.

rural people at the Iowa state fair. And those nurses aides are really rich, too.

Every meeting is planned in advance and the questions and answers are carefully scripted.

The only way to get money out of politics is for a candidate who can rake it in to get elected and put "money out of politics" justices on the Supreme Court.

If you want to wait a few decades, we could try trotting around the states and trying to get some enthusiasm going for a constitutional amendment...which is something I'd like to see happen.

Check these Haves and Have Nots--and recognize that Have Nots--no matter how compelling their message--get CRUSHED.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html

You don't have a right to make up facts--her fundraisers are not the same as her campaign appearances, and trying to convolute them is a lousy move.

Last edited Tue Aug 25, 2015, 08:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Hand picked persons at the state fair for a direct one on a few.. where she actually listens to what the individuals have to say is a much better approach than doing the Joel Osteen megachurch approach.

I find it funny that the weekend at Bernies crowd measure the success of their candidate by the size of the crowds that he can draw from his soap box with the direct aim of getting the attendees to empty the pockets for his cause. A tactic that, as near as I can tell has historically only been employed by Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, and Megachurch Pastors like Joel Olsteen.

You'll have to forgive me if I keep on focusing on the one with a proven history of progress.. granted not a perfect record, but a great overall record none the less over the pie in the sky, I've got principles but no real history of success candidate.

Comparing Bernie to Joel Osteen? Puh-leeze.

This is a groupthink defense mechanism, and the faithful must demonstrate how far they are willing to go to score "points".

Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=544525

If you don't know that, then you don't know enough about Joel Osteen to be slinging his name around.

EDIT: I was tempted to say "your pals" over at the National Review, but decided to refrain from the ad hominem.

yeah, I'm sure you do.

for a contribution. PLEASE stop with the slander Joel Olsteen my A$$.

as compared to "Roman Empire, toga-wearing elitist bullshit."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=544525

I'll be happy to go back to civilized when your side does.

BS on the other hand:

Hmmm.. which one is Bernie and which one is Olsteen?

Libel actually, since you put it in print.

They never seem to bring that up.

As Sanders said recently, "And now let me tell you something that no other candidate for president will tell you. And that is no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country. They will not be able to suceed becuase the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that no president alone can stand up to them. That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality. And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly: It is not just about electing Bernie Sanders for president, it is about creating a grassroots political movement in this country."

Unfortunately, you also can't get nominated if Big Banks/Pharma/Ag/et al. find you to be unacceptable. Unless O'Malley can gain some traction, Biden is Plan B if Clinton falters. The party establishment isn't going to allow Sanders to win. Sanders is more progressive in every way, including the issue of racial justice, but the dominant neoliberal faction isn't going to (and never was going to) allow Sanders to become the nominee.

He left a bad taste with a lot of people with his behavior in that era--pretty smug and disgraceful; no other way to characterize it.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-kerry-washington-anita-hill-hbo-confirmation-20150616-story.html

Based on Kerry Washington's comment in that article, I doubt that film will be kind to Biden--nor should it be. That was a craven failure to lead on his part. He GAVE us Clarence Thomas. He could have prevented it.

Tsk.

I'm no fan of Biden either. Clinton's use of Southern Strategy against Obama in 2008 is equally disturbing, and to think she's supposedly the stronger candidate on racial justice (not to mention all of the policies neoliberals have supported that have hurt persons of color--and virtually everyone else for that matter).

Still, both Clinton and Biden can lay claim to being the lesser evil up against Walker or Bush or Kasich or Rubio or whoever the Republican Party nominates. We either settle for that or watch a Republican Administration make peoples' lives even worse.

But there's the question of whether Clinton (who is much more likely than Biden to be the nominee) is electable. She's such a polarizing figure, and as absurd as it is, the opposition is guaranteed to paint her to be a liberal extremist the same way they would paint Sanders (never mind that Sanders is far more progressive than Clinton in every way). The electoral college map is favorable and Clinton probably only needs to win either Florida or Ohio in order to reach 270 electoral college votes. But can she win either of those states? I'm rather hoping O'Malley can somehow gain some traction so that the lesser evil is more likely to win. The Democratic Party shouldn't underestimate just how much the Republican Party loathes Clinton (and for ridiculous reasons given her neoliberal positions). If the Republican nominee can win both Florida and Ohio, the greater evil will likely reach 270.

Most thinking humans were appalled at that mess. It hasn't improved with age, either.

As for the black/latino vote, Clinton has been there and she has a history of not just words, but deeds, in those communities--Sanders, despite taking a walk with MLK fifty years ago, does not. Obviously, his "marching with MLK" doesn't resonate with a generation that regards MLK much like FDR, a figure in distant history. If it did do any good, then young black men, and women, wouldn't be murdered by the police with such easy abandon. He needs to try something else, rather than leaning back on that "I marched with MLK" schtick. You know who else marched with MLK? Charlton Heston.

I don't think Walker has much in the way of a prayer. He's not pulling in the money, he's bland, he's stupid, he'll stumble and fall. Jeb! and Trump are probably going to battle it out, and the RNC has 400 "unpledged delegates" in their pocket (the Republican equivalent of super-delegates) and no small degree of arm-twisting to shake loose the delegates of less successful candidates if there's a showdown at the RNC corral.