Meet Bernie Sanders' 2018 challenger

[DonViejo]

NEWSWEEK
08 JUL 2017 AT 09:32 ET

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) remains incredibly popular in his state and he certainly energized a portion of the left during his bid for the Democratic nomination in 2016. But at least one liberal in Vermont is fed up with the senator.

Jon Svitavsky, 59, announced this week he planned to challenge the longtime Vermont politician for his seat in his Senate. Svitavsky has never run for public office and is a massive underdog. But he told Vermont Public Radio that Sanders "divisive" politics have hurt the Democratic Party on the national scene and made the rise of Trump possible.

"I don't have any money. I've never aspired for office or power," Svitavsky told Vermont Public Radio in an interview Thursday. "But darn it, I think Sanders has hurt our country very badly with what he's done."

Sanders' early challenger also said the Vermont senator has continued to damage the party in a leadership role he's taken on since the election. "So not only did Bernie divide the Democratic Party and what not, but he continues to bash them, even on the unity tour, saying that Democrats and Republicans are the same, and they're not," Svitavsky said to Vermont Public Radio.

Svitavsky has launched a social media effort to get his anti-Sanders message out there. "Vermont deserves better than a self serving celebrity Senator," the first post on his Facebook page reads. The celebrity moniker seems to be an early branding attempt on Svitavsky's part.

more
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/meet-bernie-sanders-2018-challenger/

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Interesting. What it comes down to is would you rather have

any democrat in power or the republicans.

I say ANY democrat.

[Me.]

2. WOW

[MineralMan]

3. I can't imagine he has a prayer of winning, frankly.

If Sanders runs, Sanders wins. I think it is clear that Sanders will run, so, he'll continue to be the Independent Senator from Vermont. I'd vote for him if I lived in Vermont. I like the guy, generally.

[monmouth4]

5. Me too and he has been voted the most popular Senator. I can understand that too..n/t

[MineralMan]

7. Well, my favorite Senator at this time is Al Franken.

As long as Bernie votes with the Democratic caucus in the Senate in a reliable way, though, I think he's just fine. If he ran against Franken, though, I'd vote for Franken, every time.

[nikibatts]

152. "most popular".. hmmm.

[betsuni]

153. Yeah, Sarah Palin was one of the most popular governors.

Considering the American public ... "most popular," who knows.

[MiltonBrown]

4. Sanders had the gall to propose raising taxes on the richest people to HALF

of what it was in the 1950s and that's divisive.

[bettyellen]

11. The Dem candidate didn't call THAT divisive so why do you change the subject?

[MiltonBrown]

12. If not Bernie's economic policies what about his candidacy was divisive?

[DanTex]

15. Are you serious? How about when he calls the Dems an absolute failure and fundamentally broken

and all the rest of his divisive rhetoric. How about when he got his supporters into such a frenzy that they actually booed the Democratic nominee at the convention last year. Or that he goes around campaigning with the likes of Cornel West, a guy who called Obama the n-word and actually advocated for people to vote for the Green Party.

[MiltonBrown]

21. I don't have time to follow everything but that rhetoric about failure and such was recent, no?

And every candidate will have visible supporters that are unpopular with some.

When they call Bernie divisive, that's code for he's a socialist. (which would make Truman and Ike somewhere far to his left)

[DanTex]

25. No, they call him divisive because he is divisive.

Yeah, the failure rhetoric was recent. So was his questioning whether Joel Ossoff was progressive enough. But Bernie's been divisive for much longer than that.

Back in 1990 when he said that it would be hypocritical for him to run as a Democrat because of all the bad things he said about the Democratic Party. In 1987 he said that JFK made him physically nauseated. And so on.

Bernie being divisive and attacking Democrats is nothing new. He's been at it his whole career.

[Hekate]

40. "Code for he's a socialist"? That's ridiculous, MiltonBrown.

It's plain talk for he keeps saying (in the here and now) that the Democratic Party is a failure.

Bernie will continue to be a US Senator as long as enough voters from his small not-very-diverse state continue to vote for him. When he steps out on the national stage, as he has done and is doing NOW, he can expect to be criticized by a much much wider audience.

There is no "code" -- no "commie-scares" and no "hippie bashing" (just referring to other allegeds that have been mentioned in times past) -- just comments about what he is doing NOW on the national stage.

[Ken Burch]

132. None of which are worth replacing him with somebody to his right.

n/t.

[ehrnst]

233. The people of Vermont will decide if he is still a good choice for them.

And yes, there are many, many, many, many excellent, progressive, and frankly more effective Democrats to his right.

Maybe not in Vermont, but the voters there will make that decision.

[Hortensis]

117. Nope. No problem with socialist solutions and socialist-

leaning solutions when I believe they will best secure the wellbeing of the community. Such as with healthcare. I like using capitalism as a powerful tool to do the same where that works best, but it needs to be strongly controlled.

Which brings us to FUTURE candidacies of Bernie Sanders. For me, it's about him personally. After Warren refused to run, I seriously considered supporting him and thus learned everything I could about him. The result is that I question his judgement, his knowledge about and ability to implement his ideology, his commitment to helping the Democratic Party defeat Republicans for office, and, definitely not least, his ethics. They are very different from mine. I like the balance, good sense and commitment to democratic principles of competent liberal progressives and see Sanders as too radical in PERSONALITY, though not positions, to be able to represent me or to administer our democracy as I would wish.

So, here we are once again wondering who we will be voting for in 2018 and 2020. A set of strong liberal principles, competence, and ethics are all very big with me. I would hope to be able to vote for someone else for senator who had them if I lived up there, and I can say that if Sanders runs again for national office I pretty much expect to vote for his Democratic opponent in the primary. I hope it would never come down to voting for Sanders in a general election; and if his opponent was a competent, moderate conservative who supported progressive government policies (like Elizabeth Warren, for example) I would even carefully consider choosing him or her in the hopes of taking control of government back from the deadly combination of growing extremism and incompetence in government that threatens to destroy us.

[JCanete]

160. Not sure I understand your issues here. If Sanders is so radical, and his personality isn't capable

of moving these issues forward, then why does he enjoy the popularity he has across party and all demographic lines? I'm not advocating that he run in 2020, and I hope we get somebody different, but in that mold. I feel like measures of competence are so often tied to some preconceived, unchallenged notion of pragmatism.

I don't think that what we've been doing is the pragmatic approach at all, so I'm not sure it shows competence to sell middling progress. Maybe it shows survival skills in this political wasteland, but not a path forward to actually rebuilding on that wasteland. I say sell the need and potential for huge progress. Get what we can get.


As to your issues with his ethics, I'd be interested to hear more on what your perspective on that is.

[Hortensis]

173. 1. His compelling message that we need to stop

the ultrawealthy and inequality of income distribution. Who on the left doesn't agree that that has become a huge, existential problem? Everyone does, both thoughtful and resentful types. This is what caused me to look seriously at him in the first place.

2. His charismatic ability on the stump, messages of absolute certainty and authority delivered in very few words. To me this turns out to be his one outstanding ability, but those "very few words" ultimately repel me. I insist on details, and the few he offers in published statements don't stand up to expert analysis.

3. His decision to lead a populist movement (an alternative to Rump's on the right), deliberately whomping up and amplifying resentment and distrust against "elites" and "the establishment." This gains him a lot of passionate support among discontented populist types on the left, and he has also picked up more on the right. Populist movements scare me. They're very dangerous, especially when they gain power by uniting the passions of the populist left with the much larger population of right-wing populists looking for a strong authoritarian leader. Those can and do destroy democracies because they get their power by growing the anxiety and resentment that arises mostly from ignorance and focusing it against established governments.

We have many, many good known Democrats and many more very promising whose names have not yet become nationally known, but some will. Discussing Sanders for 2020 is just an exercise anyway. He'd be 79 in 2020, not too old for Vermont to send him back to the senate if he wished, but the presidency? For now, he continues his anti-establishment wannabe "revolution," and I think we should pay him the respect of assuming he didn't choose that destructive word as frivolously as many assume.

Bottom line, I really, really, really like our system of government, even if it does come with the huge weakness of irresponsible voting and the kinds of the people that can put in power. I vote for proven, competent people full of enthusiastic, detailed plans for how to make it work better.

[JCanete]

192. I myself distrust elites and the establishment. I feel like it has given me ample reason to do

so over the years. Do you feel entirely trusting of it?

But what is scary about a populist movement that doesn't scapegoat?...one that actually gives incentive to galvanize across poor and middle class, sexual orientations, religions, colors, backgrounds, etc. towards policies that would actually make people's lives better across the spectrum? I don't get it. This is exactly the kind of populism we DO NEED.

Yes, actual revolutions are dangerous and who knows how they are going to cut. I certainly don't want one. But it does us no service to pretend, as the Democrats have done for years, that our democracy is not in great jeopardy...that it hasn't been sold to the highest bidder, and that the information we get out of our 4th estate is not propaganda for our democracy's owners. I get it...losing faith in democracy is bad. We don't want people to be checked out. We want them to fucking check in, and that goes beyond voting to actually being informed on the issues. But we can't do that by lying to them or blowing smoke up their asses about how the system is fine or how the media IS our watchdog of truth as it stands. People have good reasons to distrust the media, which works day and night to bash democrats and liberals when not simply ignoring them or the important issues of the day that would wake people the fuck up.

We let the republicans run with the message the the media is borked and liberal, as absurd as that is, even in the face of who owns it and what it does. We let Trump take the reigns of that message, and the reasons for our leadership allowing this charade to continue without unified pushback are entirely lost on me. Somehow we are the defenders of the media that rakes US through the coals and gives republicans cover. It is so senseless. It is so enabling.

Which brings me to my issue with budget experts, etc. My problem with them is just one thing. They are still part of the machinery selling a product. I take their doom and gloom when it comes to progressive suggestions with a huge grain of salt, because when I actually look at their methodologies, I often find gaping holes in their considerations....whether intentional or simply blind-spots I'm not sure. That doesn't mean I think Sanders is the best and most stellar crafter of legislation...probably far from it. I don't give a shit, because there are plenty who could craft this legislation right, if the will were there. That takes the bully pulpit being used correctly. That takes the people getting behind these causes, and our leadership responding to what the people want.

Yes, unfortunately messaging in general plays on ignorance, not intentionally necessarily, but we live in a sound-byte world. I felt that way about Clinton's whole campaign strategy. She was selling a feeling and a brand, and I rarely saw her actually selling ideas and policies to the public. So, yes of course, in our sorry state, most voters are deeply ignorant of civics and politics and history, etc. and they are responding to whatever it is they are responding to when they get energized by a candidate, but that is hardly a problem relegated to the disaffected alone. That is hardly a problem that befits some Sanders and almost all Trump supporters. You will find it among Clinton voters as well, and I'd venture, in equal numbers to those in Sanders camp, though granted, this is all just speculation.

I would rather that energy go towards positive change than go towards barring the door of such change in favor of broken establishment conditions, but then, we will most certainly have our disagreements as to what IS and IS NOT effective, and what has and has not been.

As to the term revolution, it has been used in plenty a positive context. I don't object to it when in keeping with the right message. Sanders didn't take his ball and go home. He didn't blow shit up. He lost the primary and then endorsed Clinton. He talked about the most progressive DNC platform in recent history. That said, I don't see him running in 2020, and I hope we get new blood, but I want one in this mold, and you clearly would oppose such a candidate. I just disagree with your reasons.

[Hortensis]

193. JCanete, those who can name good officials who need to be kept

and a much smaller number of others to discard, who value and want to fix their government, are NOT populists. Don't be fooled by the notion that "populists" are "the people." They're not. Those who get caught up by populist passions are special subsets of the people. And not all initially drawn to populist leaders for their stated goals become "populist" in mindset. By a long shot.

Populist movements by by definition are resentful, emotional riots of those people who mostly want to burn an amorphous, undefined "the establishment" down. Mindless resentment rules, the "reform" part they always claim mostly mostly just words glossing over the underlying desire to attack. They do very sincerely want "change," all right, but reform is not where their passions lie so specific goals are not committed to. And populist leaders can use these passions as a ring in followers' noses to take them wherever the leaders want to go.

Btw, as a way of illustrating that populism does not equal just normal folk finally saying no, populists are typically also hostile toward some other group or groups, too. All that aggressive resentment needing outlets. Right wing populists are very obvious--Rump promised his followers to persecute Hispanics and Muslims for them. As just their main targeted groups.

Left-wing populist targets in the U.S. are far, far, far less developed. Sanders emphatically did not hit that note for any group, and of course, he is a Jew himself. Nevertheless, a rise in antisemitism is seen in the radical and far left, and thus in left-wing populism, even though it's far less strong than it is in Europe in their left- and right-wing populist movements.

(For an example of the latter: POPULIST SURGE IS A THREAT TO JEWS
http://www.newsweek.com/anti-semitism-labour-ken-livingstone-front-national-europe-454071 )

[JCanete]

209. and the non-populists here are fairly hostile to those people o the far left, if you haven't noticed

You still seem to think or suggest that there is something more susceptible about groups that populate to these messages than to groups who put a D or R on their jersey and go "ra ra."

It would make no sense to find radical anti-semitism on the far left. By what are you defining the far left all of a sudden? Any movement to fight the class war would be entirely undermined by this kind of divisive shit, and I'd love to know who you think represents it, again, on the left. No leaders on the left in our nation I can think of, but maybe i've just missed them.

It isn't true that Sanders didn't have specific goals by a long shot. The legislation may not have been refined, but again, I don't care about that. There is no reason other than the machinery itself and lack of public pressure on the people in office, that these things can't get done.

As to who populists are, and who their voice represents, there are a lot of ways to take that. representing the people by presenting things to them that they should actually have, is the right kind of populism. Presenting an option that again, puts people on the same side of these issues rather than pitting them against each other, is the right kind of populism. Whether or not the people know they want this stuff yet, or still reject some of it for long seeded, unexamined reasons, is an entirely different question. Conversely, of course, there is the populist rhetoric that preys on people's worst fears and divides them, but I"m not sure how you could possibly lump the actual realities of our problems in with the trumped up ones. They don't all equal the same thing. One is a made up narrative, and one is not. They all appeal to voter dissatisfaction and from there they part ways. And one should not ignore those realities simply because they might lead to outrage. There are things the public should kind of be outraged about.

At least that's my take. The pragmatism of governing is another entirely different question, that is very fair territory to debate with lefties who don't like the status quo, but I think there are strong arguments on that issue that can be made on either side as to whether or not our approach has even been pragmatic.

[Hortensis]

210. "Democracy Dismantled: Why the Populist Threat Is Real and Serious"

Last edited Tue Jul 11, 2017, 06:56 PM - Edit history (3)

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/21516/democracy-dismantled-why-the-populist-threat-is-real-and-serious

What is populism? Populists can be everything from militarists to libertarians. So what does the word actually mean?
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/12/economist-explains-18

Populist movements, of course, can be a useful kick in the pants for governments, but I still don't vote for people trying to get elected by claiming what we have is too bad to continue. Our government is great, and plenty of Democrats are, or want to be, good public servants.

Note that the ultraconservative Kochs brought in a bunch of ringers to take power from Rump's "populist" victory, and so far his voters don't even know it. Of course. Those who thrill to charismatic demagoguery make good suckers.

That sort of thing could happen on the left also, a bad but rousing leader (funded by who?) sweeping in and drawing off the current leader's support, perhaps when he's unable to come through on his promises to them.

[ehrnst]

234. "It would make no sense to find radical anti-semitism on the far left."

Well, actual Jewish people might be a better judge of that.

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Antisemitism-in-America-is-rising-on-the-Right-and-the-Left-470843

[Zinner88]

142. Explaining needed change is not divisive

Bernie is not divisive. He simply recognizes that doing the same thing that has been losing elections for Democrats is not going to work, because it's not just the presidency, but also more than 1000 seats in Congress and state races that have been lost to Republicans. Change is desperately needed so the party can win and Bernie is on the right track with the kind of change that is needed, and wouldn't be criticizing if what the party was doing was winning elections, but it is not. Bernie's popularity has soared as more people get to know him and he has been named the most popular active politician in the Harvard Harris poll, while the Democratic party has actually gone down 5 points in favorability according to Gallup, so Bernie's ideas could help.

The Democratic party needs to take strong stands on issues like single payer healthcare, minimum wage, free tuition at state colleges and universities, things that affect people in their everyday lives. They need to get everyone in the party who holds an office to actually act on these things, not just talk about them, to show voters they are on the side of working people. When people see the party actually acting in the best interests of the public, it will be easy for Democrats to win again.

The DNC put Bernie in charge of outreach for the party, and he has been actively going on tour and talking to crowds and getting enthusiastic applause, promoting Medicare for All. He will introduce or co-sponsor a bill and, hopefully, Democrats will be on board. Something like this could win over a lot of voters. Voters need to see Democrats taking action for them.

[George II]

175. Many of those who call him divisive identify as being "socialists"....

...don't understand what you're saying in the parentheses.

[JCanete]

50. I don't want the kind of unity where certain issues are third rails and no party addresses them.

fuck that. We are reaping the whirlwind of the last 20 years of that.

[DanTex]

56. Well that works both ways.

There are centrists in the party that don't want cutting (ok "restructuring&quot social security to be a third rail. But I think that actually should be a third rail for Democrats.

What's more important, IMO, is the unity itself. Sure, let's have a vigorous debate between Democrats and progressives about single payer, debt relief, and all that. But going into the debate, we should all agree that whatever the outcome, we are all 100% committed to supporting the Democratic Party, because the other option which is the GOP is far more horrible in every possible way. That we're not going to somehow undermine the party if we don't get everything we want. And there should also be recognition that the debate within the party is less important than the fight against the GOP.

And I don't see that commitment from Bernie or his wing of the party. Way too often, they like to trash the Democratic party if it doesn't agree with everything they say, and some of them will even use the threat of sabotage via third-party voting.

[JCanete]

61. That's pragmatic for the party. It isn't pragmatic for the issues, and that's the problem with

your suggestion. Its asking people to play nice, voice their opinions within the party, pretend as if the party itself has no blemishes on these issues--say, being beholden to corporate donors--and then shut the fuck up when of course, they lose. What about getting the message out? What about all of the independents, both moderate and far left, who have chosen no party speaks for them?

I know some liberals have been flat out wrong, or at least not parsing enough of their rhetoric, about whether or not Republicans are worse than Democrats, but that has not been a Sanders issue. You can have a problem with the way Washington does business, and still think one party is far worse, but you can't pretend the other party doesn't have those problems and have any credibility at all with the voters. And frankly, to try to paint such a picture while railing against these forces is dishonest hackery that undermines the argument and stifles the evidence.

You may not like the disunity but it takes getting the population behind these ideas for the Democratic party to be able to move to them, and I am not at all convinced that the approach you think liberals should take would ever be successful at that. These policy positions would die a quiet death.

[DanTex]

86. The only way to make any progress on the issues is if the Democratic Party wins votes.

And conversely, when the GOP wins, then a lot of progress is lost on the issues. So, yeah, I would say that what's good for the Democratic Party is also good for progressive issues. And also, yes, I think people should voice their issues within the party, rather than attack the party. That doesn't mean the party doesn't have flaws. But what it does mean is that we fix our flaws from within, we don't do it by going out and hurting the party and thereby helping the GOP.

And, yes, the "Democrats are just as bad" thing is most definitely a Sanders issue. It was his delegates booing at the convention. Yeah, I know he didn't tell them to boo, but at some point, as a politician, if you inspire people into destructive actions like that, you bear some responsibility. He also bears responsibility that a speaker at his rally called Hillary a whore, even though it wasn't him who did that. It was Bernie who set the tone, those other people were following the tone that he set.

Also, let's not forget that the left has failed catastrophically at everything it has tried for the last several decades. The main accomplishments of the left are electing W in 2000 and helping elect Trump in 2016. Other than that, the left has absolutely nothing to show for its strategy of attacking the Democratic Party. So I would suggest that it is in the best interests of the left to start trying something different.

[JCanete]

92. only when the democratic party is pushing progressive issues, but that does not happen without

public pressure or demand for said issues to be pushed. You say that pushing those issues, being steadfast and demanding that the Democratic party give at least lip service to them has failed, but that's ridiculous. You simply do not know what the Democratic party would look like had these pressures not existed...had these issues not found their way into public discourse. Democrats have learned their lesson. They don't stick their neck out on things that don't already have a groundswell of support, and they don't alienate the people who help them to get elected unless they have enough incentive to do so. Its too hard and politically suicidal.

Not to mention, it is disingenuous to suggest that the left has failed when you KNOW that it is working with a shoe-string budget compared to more moderate, corporately tied in platforms. OF COURSE the challenge is herculean. OF COURSE the forces against them are well funded and powerful, and they don't just exist in the GOP. What should piss you off, but apparently doesn't, is that Democrats have done their share of scuttling progressive messaging over the years. They have leant their weight towards that so called failure that you accuse the left of. Your solution is not to support the left in its efforts, but to declare it dead and a failure because the task is hard and success has been depressing...shit why don't we declare the Democratic party dead at this point too? What have we done lately? Why not declare the fight against global warming dead? What have those lame scientists accomplished but a lot of noise that makes us feel bad?

People at the convention were booing for entirely different issues than what you are stating. They felt as if the thumb was on the scale, and of course it was. Not nefariously per say, but because people within leadership have a genuine bias. They have a brand that they think is right and effective, and they aren't too keen to do something that mucks it up any favors. Nothing about those boos automatically indicates that these people thought the GOP and the Democrats were on par.


And one last thing. It only matters if the Democratic party wins, if it is a progressive party. If it is a conflicted party, when we win, we show middling results, and then we lose. We lose big. We've lost a 1000 seats in down-ticket elections, not because people on the left are attacking our brand, but because our brand is nowhere near as unimpeachable as it should be. And our deliverances aren't as bullet proof as they should be. When we pass something on party lines, why is it weak sauce that still hurts some average americans because we couldn't do what needed to be done? There would have been no referendum on Obamacare in this last election if we'd just done it right. People would have realized far sooner that they liked this public option.

We refuse over and over again to take the wind out of Republican sails. We refuse over and over again to distinguish ourselves like night and day from the republicans and their lobbyist connections, and that makes it nearly impossible for us to throw stones at them for being bought and paid for. We refuse to take the fight to the rich and the media they own, because hey, we want them to be our friends, and we need their support next election, and for that, they continue to use their tools to make our Party look bad in the name of their corporate agendas.

[Demsrule86]

154. Well than the alt-left can elect Republicans and see how much they enjoy those policies. The

Democratic Party is the only vehicle for progressive policy and given that we have a 50 50 split...there are things even Dems can't deliver;however, it sure as hell would be better than what any Republicans president or congress can deliver. and of course I have noticed their complete lack of concern for the thousands perhaps million who will die under Republican policy..but of course the alt- left can enjoy the nothing they get from Republicans and how marginalized progressive policies are after electing someone like Trump or Reagan with no empathy or concern for Republicans. They can live under the Republicans for all time while complaining about how the Democratic Party is the problem and not them...because the alt -left which includes Greens, third party riffraff and any who claim to be progressive but didn't vote for Sec. Clinton in 16 are the problem, and it goes way back. Funny how those who claim huge liberal/progressive bonafides elect Republicans and thus enable Republicans who are out to destroy all of our progressive achievements and prevent more...all the while blaming the Democratic Party for what their actions cause...money in politics after they gave us United is a perfect example.

[JCanete]

157. Or you could be frustrated with the party for not going more populist and capturing these votes.

Maybe that helped elect republicans. People could play this game all day, hell, probably all score or for the next 50 years, and it gets us nowhere.

I see no actual political benefit for not doing so, except of course for the money. The money though, is the problem. A lot of it is the same money that really wants republicans elected but will accept a moderate democratic plan B, should their GOP option fall out of public favor. That money dictates far too much. Our conciliatory language with Wall Street and big business in general makes us look like we are working for them, even if we are instead, trying to find some middle ground...that middle ground isn't where we need our politicians to be.

Why did it take so long for Clinton and the DNC to adjust their policy to reflect some of the leftmost citizen's interests? why not come out with those in the first place? Why put so much daylight between left-wing candidates and the mainstream Democratic party, when those policy goals are just plain better, more inspiring and not at all mechanically impractical?

I'm not saying the people who didn't vote for Clinton were right. I think they were wrong. I just understand the calculations of the more thoughtful ones among them, and why they feel like these middling approaches are both hard to trust and ultimately ineffective and damaging.

[Demsrule86]

158. I would never be frustrated enough with the Democratic party and vote

Republican...which is what you do when you vote third party or stay home. I understand that it is unreasonable to demand policies that cannot be passed such as single payer at this moment....our dear alt left friends sat home and pouted in 10 because Pres. Obama got what he could the ACA which save thousands of lives...but not single payer...and then we got nothing but sequester from then on. I would never cut off my nose to spite my face and have contempt for those who do...Greens and third party riffraff who are not progressive by the way and certainly not the base of the Democratic Party.

[JCanete]

159. he got what he could OUT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. why is that all we could get from ourselves?

We got politically screwed for Obamacare anyway, so whatever calculations were being done, you have to admit, they did us no favors...we could have done something that no middle class people got screwed by. We could have made it nearly unassailable. Sure, the Repubs would have tried to assail it, and the money would have gone hard(er) at our politicians, but the benefits would have been universal. Nobody, or very few people, would have been hurt by this. Even if Obamacare curbed insurance inflation, people still saw their bill going up to the point of hardship. Not capping prices was shooting off our own foot.

When we as a party say something is impractical, we make it so. We set limits on the possible. We know that singlepayer isn't impossible, but we are playing in current political realities, rather than shaping them. Trump shaped political reality. He said..."we're building a stupid pointless wall..." We say, "political reality is what the money and republicans say it is." That has got to stop.

We ARE cutting our nose off to spite our face, and others are interpreting that rightly or wrongly as our politicians doing no such thing. They are interpreting it as business as usual...as part of the big charade. I can't fault them for coming to that conclusion, even if I myself remain slightly more hopeful and hold out a little more faith in our leadership.

[Ken Burch]

133. But progress isn't made when Dems are elected by saying "I'm no liberal"

If they say that, they spend most of their time blocking progress and demanding that bills be watered-down to nothing.

And it never serves any greater progressive good when the party leadership aggressively pushes for the least-progressive candidate we can find in a district.

There have to be SOME limits as to how far we can tolerate our candidates going to the right. We can't ever go back to the idea that it's enough to settle for somebody just being pro-choice.

BTW...we came out of Philly twelve points ahead...the biggest lead we had in the whole campaign. The booing you are still holding a grudge about(booing that wouldn't have happened if we had only taken the progressive position and said "no TPP" in the platform(or even if our nominee had said it that night in the acceptance speech)made no difference.

[DanTex]

155. Obama compared himself to moderate Republican and made tons of progress.

Of course, thanks in part to the far left, that progress is now at risk of being reversed.

And, yes, it can serve a greater progressive good to push for a less progressive candidate in a district. That happens if the less progressive candidate can win, and the more progressive candidate can't. Isn't that obvious?

Sure, in the abstract there has to be some limit as to how far right a Dem can go. For example, if the Dems nominated someone who was truly equally far right as the GOP, at that point there would be no point in voting for either, because they actually were the same. But the thing is, that scenario has never come anywhere close to actually occurring. I can't think of any election in recent memory, at any level, where the Democrat and the Republican were indistinguishable.

Which means that, in reality, all this talk of the Dem and the Rep being equally bad is just stupid and counterproductive. The thing for the left to do is to make their case during the primary. If they can't get more than half the primary electorate, which is much more progressive than the general electorate, on their side, then they need to work on their messaging. But the strategy of sabotaging the Democrats in general elections to somehow get revenge for not doing everything the far left wants, that is both childish and also damaging to all the causes the left claims to care about.

[JCanete]

163. and he also tried to do that with policy. He gave the Republicans no reason at all to make

compromises. They had no reasons to sign on to moderate legislation and give us a bipartisan product, because the best we could do was to get that moderate compromise within our own party, which is entirely unacceptable. There was nothing we could put forward to scare the shit out of republicans because they knew no single payer was coming. They knew no public option was coming. We sucked. And then, even after watering down this legislation, we ran away from it, refused to defend it vigorously or to present the next steps that would make it better. If we were going to behave that way, we should have just gotten the better bill in the first place. It didn't save our seats, now did it?

When republicans are in office they go for draconian ass shit, and a few of our democrats too often vote in favor of some "lesser evil" because they are "afraid" of what the Republicans might get passed without them, or who they might push through the nomination process...etc. why don't we do what they do unless we don't want to win? Our determination to support very moderate middle of the road candidates means that we can't push as hard on populist rhetoric without making those in our own party look bad, assuming they get elected, and that means we can't make these ideas familiar and popular with the American people. We are entrenching our political realities, and then saying our hands are tied because of them, and it is hurting, not helping our brand. Sure, this might get us seats, but not enough of them.


It isn't true that Dems and Repubs are just as bad, unless the point is, they are both continuing us in the wrong trajectory, for different reasons. If the Democratic approach is one that loses us elections and keeps us in the minority party, you can't blame that wholly on the people who weren't sold on us...you have to put some of that blame on the party. If they were taking on the media and the money that is making this result happen, I'd say "okay, you are doing all you can with far less money, so yeah, this is an uphill battle." But they are taking the money from these corporations and people with deep pockets and trying to be their friends while they nudge them in the right direction, and these corporations and individuals are saying, "sure, after we drag you through hot coals with our media and donor support for your opponents, if somehow you still manage to take power, we'll talk."

And if when our dems ARE in power and they can finally legislate some of these ideals that they have told their voters they are in favor of, they simply take them off the table because they are too hard, that may have perfectly calculated political reasons, but it understandably raises suspicions.

[DanTex]

177. I agree with some of your criticisms of Obama.

But I still think he deserves high marks in general. People forget that we only had a filibuster-proof senate for about 2 months, and that even when we had it, it included people like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. Could Obama have strong-armed them into a public option? Possibly but I doubt it.

Obama's biggest failing IMO was losing all those seats. And you're right, that can't be blamed on the left or the Greens. That was a tactical failure of the Democratic Party. But I see no evidence whatsoever that moving further left would have made things better.

When you talk about "middle of the road moderate candidates", who do you mean? A lot of people on the left consider Obama and Clinton to be middle of the road moderates, which is plainly inaccurate. There are some actual moderates in our party, like Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp, but they come from red states where really we can't do any better.

I also think you are mistaken when you say both parties are continuing us on the wrong trajectory. Obama put us back on a good trajectory. Sure, there are limits to what he accomplished, but that's because of congress, not because of his unwillingness to propose progressive policies. He proposed raising the min wage, jobs programs, infrastructure investments, etc. But with Paul Ryan as speaker, there was no way forward through congress. So instead he did a lot through executive orders.

In particular, with respect to climate, it's possible that we will look back decades from now and think that the only reason that the human race survived, despite Trump's efforts to destroy the planet, is because of what Obama did before him. The investments he made in green energy, fuel standards, the clean power plan, and building international consensus.

But one thing I have no doubt that we will look back on is the insanity that has gripped the far left over the last two decades, to the point where they intentionally try to elect Republicans to the presidency in order to punish the Dems for lack of purity. Especially when it comes to climate. They even emphasize that time is really running out for us to curb climate change, and they what do they do? They help put Republican after Republican in office, knowing full well what that means for the environment. Just imagine where we'd be now if Nader hadn't helped W win in 2000. I mean: no Iraq War!

[ehrnst]

236. Thats a very white straight male POV.

The rest of us who have benefitted greatly from the Democratic successes of the last few decades, and who are the actual base of the party know better.

Especially when it comes to the ACA, Planned Parenthood, LGBTQ rights.

Democrats actually got health care reform passed - in CHIP and the ACA. You can't say that about Independents or GOP, or Greens.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

[Ken Burch]

166. I'm not one of the people SAYING that Dems and Repubs are equally bad-or thinking it.

We need to keep reminding people that we stand for better things, and part of that is actually trying to win the argument on the issues, rather than settling for the path of least resistance.

President Obama did some excellent things, I voted for him twice and I deeply respect the man.

Unfortunately, what he seldom seemed interested in doing(especially in the 2009-2010 era, when we had a real chance to solidify a long-term progressive realignment)was challenging the right-wing narrative on the issues, challenging the right-wing implication that they had a special claim on "Americanism", that the voters who backed the right were American and the rest of us aren't. It often sounded as though he and the rest of the party leadership kind of accepted the Republican idea that Dems had no right to win elections and no right to govern as though our victories count as much as Republican victory do.

What we needed to do, and what we will need to do if we ever get another Democratic president and Democratic congress at the same time(and if the GOP hasn't found some way between now and 2020 or maybe 2024 to make it constitutionally impossible to do anything progressive, which is something they have a real possibility of achieving) is to OWN it when we win an election...to claim the right to set the narrative, to message strongly on the idea that we have a mandate and the right to implement the program we were elected on...and that OUR voters and our views are as legitimate a part of the spectrum and as American as the voters and policies of the right.

When we win, we need to govern as though we don't have to defer to our opponents.

And if there are places where we have to nominate moderates, then at least we should get a commitment from those moderates that they'll leave it at voting against progressive legislation, rather than threatening to filibuster it unless it is watered-down to nothing.
It's not as though we can only get a majority in the House or the Senate by promising to make that majority live at the mercy of an obstructionist minority within.

[alarimer]

187. Unity for unity's sake is bullshit.

I'll become an independent if that is required and especially if Democrats insist on some sort of centrist, third-way nonsense that will only ensure that they keep losing.

[bettyellen]

18. Baiting people into rehashing the primary too? LOL just stop it. THIS

Bullshit is divisive as all get out. Your answer is in the OP and easily googled. Spoiler alert: Dems think Sanders has been - and continues to be / very divisive THIS year.
That's what the OP says. Sanders is trashing Dems.

why you're inviting people to refight the primaries with you?

[MiltonBrown]

23. The issues that Bernie raised matter to me.

I'll bring them up whenever I please, thanks.

[bettyellen]

41. Even when they're completely off topic? Perhaps you could educate yourself about his divisive state

Mental so that you'd actually know what your taking about instead of deflecting like this?

[Hekate]

44. Welcome to DU

Have we met before?

[MiltonBrown]

118. Thanks a lot for the welcome/get out posts!

[Hekate]

51. Rehashing the primaries is a violation of the TOS that you signed before joining, Milton

There's very good reasons for that.

[MiltonBrown]

116. Feel free to have me kicked out then.

[Hekate]

119. That's certainly not up to me

[pirateshipdude]

6. I am all for a Democratic representative that truly represents the Democratic Party. Eom

[Blue_true]

34. Same here.

I liked what the new guy had to say. He has spent his adult life helping the needy and down and out. My type of candidate. I will study his bio but as of now, I am leaning toward him.

[Martin Eden]

54. I am all for a Democratic representative that truly represents Democratic VOTERS

Bernie Sanders emerged as a strong challenger for the presidential nomination because the Democratic Party establishment was perceived to fall short of representing Democratic voters.

The vilification of Sanders always seems to miss that point.

[pirateshipdude]

57. I think Sanders is one of the weaker primary candidates if you were to check past

performances. I do not think you are factually correct about Sanders. He lost by Super Tuesday.

[Martin Eden]

74. How many Democratic candidates were there at the start?

The field narrowed down to three, then O'Malley dropped out. It's very telling that the strongest challenger to the candidate of the party establishment merely caucused with Democrats prior to his run.

All of which is besides the point, which is that vilification of Bernie Sanders misses the point.

Personally, I don't really care about Sanders or Clinton. I care about policies that will move our country and the world towards a better future.

[pirateshipdude]

93. The strongest that was not strong at all. Which is the point. The Democratic base supported

Clinton. Meh, works for me.

I find anyone arguing "establishment" per the 70 yr old white man that has been in congress for two and a half decades to be ironic.

[Martin Eden]

96. You don't think Bernie Sanders is anti-establishment -- even compared to HRC?

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Just keep in mind that age, race, and gender do not determine everything; nor does the length of a political career.

[pirateshipdude]

98. Sanders is the epitome of establishment. You seriously argue otherwise?

Old, white, male, in congress for two and half decades. He is the very one he is complaining about and he sold that.

[Martin Eden]

100. I already did

While you're sticking to the ludicrous metrics of age, race, gender, and political longevity.

Have a nice day.

[pirateshipdude]

102. He has sat in congress for two and half decades. He is the establishment.

[pirateshipdude]

103. I have no problem with the "establishment". I do not see it as an insult, like others define.

Trump is not part of the establishment and look at the trashing we experience. Every one of the people he put into place are not part of the establishment and their is total chaos and destruction. I am not the one using it as an insult toward others, and certainly not the whole of our Democratic Party that we are suppose to be supporting, here on a Democratic message board.

Or PP.

Or Naral.

Who else did Sanders define as establishment?

I personally am really glad PP is an establishment and established. I see it as a good thing.

[NNadir]

89. I'm a lifetime Democratic voter, and the Senator from Vermont, particularly his opposition to...

...sensible gun control doesn't represent me at all.

We each have our own issues and it is just pure hubris for anyone to announce that his or her opinions "truly represents Democratic VOTERS."

I for one, am not into making the perfect the enemy of the excellent.

Democratic VOTERS chose a candidate in 2016. It wasn't Senator Sanders. The Democratic Candidate in 2016 WON the most votes, but an ancient relic of slavery in our constitution caused a racist pig to take office rather than the candidate who overwhelmingly won the most American votes.

That Senator Sanders opposes the racist pig and his racist allies in Congress does not mean that he speaks for all Democrats beyond that simple article of policy on which all sane Democrats agree. He speaks for all of us on that one issue, but that doesn't mean that many of us don't consider much else of what he says to be blather.

I certainly regard him as a blathering fool on the issue most important to me, climate change. He surely doesn't speak for me there. He clearly is completely and totally disinterested in science for one thing.

[pirateshipdude]

94. I find our Democrats much more progressive, fact be told. And Liberal which Sanders

says he is not.

I pretty much agree with everything you say.

[Martin Eden]

95. I've never seen a politician with whom I agree on everything. Nobody is perfect.

Therefore I never intended to claim any particular candidate represents ALL Democratic voters. However, Bernie was closer to my beliefs on more issues than Hillary -- economic & social justice and a non-interventionist foreign policy. She forever lost my vote in Democratic primaries in October 2002 with the Iraq War Resolution, as did Kerry & Biden.

My purpose here is not to refight the primary. I'm just sick of all the Bernie bashing. I did not hesitate to vote for Hillary in the general election, and I helped get out the vote for Kerry in 2004.

Part of working towards the Democratic unity needed to win in 2018 & 2020 means including those who voted for Bernie rather than alienating them.

[LanternWaste]

231. relevant difference between bashing a sacred cow and criticism of a politician

"I'm just sick of all the Bernie bashing...

Then maybe attempt to distinguish the relevant difference between bashing a sacred cow and criticism of a politician..?

If you are successful in doing so, you'll certainly see much less bashing. If you are unable though, it's quite alright... "nobody is perfect."

[femmedem]

110. What don't you like about Sanders' position on climate change?

He's called it the biggest threat facing the planet, aggressively questioned Scott Pruitt on climate change, has called for immediate action to combat it, and Mother Jones said he has one of the best records in the Senate on climate change.

Here's what he said to Rick Perry during Perry's confirmation hearing: ""That position is a variance with virtually the entire scientific community that has studied climate change," Sanders observed before asking, "do you still hold the views that you expressed in 2011? ... Do you agree with those scientists that it is absolutely imperative that we transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency so that we can leave this planet in a way that is healthy and habitable for our kids and future generations?" https://www.ecowatch.com/sanders-rick-perry-doe-2202984470.html

I can understand disagreeing with him on gun control, but am baffled as to why you disagree with him on climate change or say that he is disinterested in science.

[NNadir]

131. Frankly, I'm somewhat out of the Dem mainstream on this one. I believe that Senator Sanders...

...position on energy is wishful thinking and frankly scientifically illiterate. Regrettably it is consistent with the views of many Democrats, but to the extent this is true, it is, to my embarrassment as Democrat, our equivalent to creationism.

If you go to a doctor, and he correctly diagnoses your cancer, and then announces that the treatment is to go to witch doctor in Peru, you will not get better.

If you pay lip service to climate change but actually work to make it worse, you're not helping; you're in fact hurting.

It comes down to this:

Vermont until two or three years ago was the only state in the United States which did not use dangerous fossil fuels to generate its electricity. Almost all of the electricity in Vermont was generated in a single power plant in a single building, the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

That is no longer true. Like every other state in this country, Vermont relies on fracking or else the lights go out.

Senator Sanders thought this was a good idea.

I consider fracking and all other dangerous fossil fuels to be a crime against all future generations. It is the people who are infants today who bear the costs of this stuff.

Senator Sanders position is that the world can survive on what he, and many other Democrats call "renewable energy," particularly solar and wind.

This is garbage thinking. We just spent two trillion dollars on so called "renewable energy" in the last ten years with the result that increase in dangerous fuel waste in the planetary atmosphere is accelerating at the highest rate ever observed. Air pollution deaths now number 7 million human beings per year.

So called "renewable energy" didn't work; it's not working; and it won't work. It is not sustainable, and it is not even "renewable." Quick: Which killed more people instantaneously in Japan, solar cell intermediate manufacture or Fukushima?

I've made this case all over the internet, usually accompanied by appeals to the primary scientific literature.

Probably the clearest exposition on my thinking that I've written on this score is written here:

Current World Energy Demand; Ethical World Energy Demand; Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come

I consider Senator Sanders anti-nuclear policies to not be simply blather, but to be dangerous.

Nuclear energy saves lives.

Senator Sanders apparently believes that nuclear power, and only nuclear power, needs to be perfect and without risk or else everything else, including the dangerous natural gas his state is now burning, will be allowed to kill at will.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect; it need not be without risk to be better than everything else. It only needs to be better than everything else which it is.

The last real President of the United States and his first energy Secretary Stephen Chu, Nobel Laureate, got it. Sanders doesn't get it. I suspected that Ms. Clinton would have gotten it; she probably already did.

I hope this explains my position.

Thanks for asking.

[femmedem]

134. Thank you for the in-depth reply.

I agree that although nuclear poses a potential (and serious) risk, fossil fuels are clear suicide.

I am still for wind and solar and geothermal, and am buoyed to see the rising percentages of energy they're generating in other countries (I haven't read your links yet, though, because I have a boomer headache tonight) but I would never advocate for closing a nuclear plant to switch to fracked methane gas.

[NNadir]

190. Wow! An open mind!!! I'm not used to seeing those, but I'm grateful that they still exist!

Thanks. You made me feel very good.

I used to support solar and wind and geothermal. I am, after all, a Democrat. But when I did so, I have to confess I didn't know much about that stuff. I only learned the gory details after listening to people tell me "we don't need nuclear" because solar and wind are so great.

I have changed my mind about solar and wind. I don't think they are either acceptable or in fact, ethical, since, to my mind, their chief function is not to produce energy, but rather to produce complacency, complacency which allows the gas (and other dangeros fossil fuel) industries to expand.

I'm not impressed at all about the "rising percentages" of energy people claim they are producing. As of 2015, the world was generating and consuming 574 exajoules of energy per year. Solar and wind combined don't produce 5 of them. After 50 years of wild eyed cheering, solar doesn't produce 1 of them. The entire solar industry after 50 years of cheering for it doesn't produce as much total energy as the growth, year to year, of dangerous natural gas.

And let's be clear, the fastest growing fuel on this planet is not so called "renewable energy." It's dangerous natural gas, by a long shot, and the all time record for growth in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere established in 2015 and nearly matched in 2016 reflects that fact. Both coal and petroleum are near their highest use levels ever.

The lie that so called "renewable energy" is growing fast is based on a deliberate misrepresentation using peak capacity as being the same as continuous utilization. A solar farm rated at 1000 MW that produces that much power for 15 minutes 25 days a year is not the equivalent of a nuclear plant at the same rating that produces 100% of its capacity continuously for two years between refueling.

All of this disaster is the result of misplaced faith and squandered money in so called renewable energy. We spent, on this planet, roughly two trillion dollars on solar and wind in just the last ten years alone, this on a planet where billions of people lack access to any kind of approved sanitation at all.

I'm, again, impressed by your open mind - and, again, never expect actually to see one anymore - but I have to tell you that the more deeply I look into the matter, the more that I think that the so called "renewable energy" industry is a tragedy in the making.

I no longer support solar, in particular, since I regard it as modern day asbestos, a material considered wonderful in its time, but which is now a huge and expensive liability that has fallen on the heads of those generations that had nothing to do with putting it there.

Asbestos was, in fact, thought of as a major wonder, even though there were some voices, few but some, who questioned it and began to understand the huge and unacceptable risk it represented to the public.

This link has a disturbing list of the kind of products into which asbestos was added: History of Asbestos, the Wonder Material

The solar industry, which has a waste profile very much like the already intractable problem of electronic waste, is almost certainly to prove as bad.

That Santayana cliche applies here.

The solar industry is not remotely safe; it's not remotely sustainable, and I suspect that 30 or 40 years ago, the people who are babies today will face huge risks to clean up the mess that these distributed toxics will represent.

I wrote in this space about the huge cadmium crisis in China, affecting millions of people.

Predictably, nobody cares, because I'm saying something that differs from what people want to hear.

The astounding cadmium intake associated with rice in Southern China.

Many solar cells on this planet are cadmium telluride or cadmium selenide based. This makes solar cells the equivalent of leaded gasoline to my mind, because, even if the solar cells last 25 years - and I doubt they will - eventually they will begin to leach what's in them, just like another example of "distributed energy" that has been an environmental disaster, the automobile.

I've spent much of the last 30 years in libraries reading about energy and the environment. I am deeply disturbed about what the public, not just the right wing, but also the left wing thinks about energy.

Thanks again, for listening. It's usually more than I can ask.

[femmedem]

135. I will read your links.

I'm skimming tonight because my headache/nausea is making it very hard to concentrate, but it's very, very interesting and I'm looking forward to digging into it.

[Zinner88]

144. Calling for a nationwide ban on fracking is not supporting it.

I can tell you that during the primaries, Bernie called for a nationwide ban on fracking, so he certainly does not support that. If you go in depth on his ideas, he usually has very practical ways to go about things, so I think the folks who bash him just know very little about him. He's not perfect, but he does oppose fracking, and has talked about how it threatens the water supply. It looks like a lot of people on here have listened to what naysayers have said about Bernie, rather than listening to what the man has said himself.

[femmedem]

149. I voted for Bernie in the primary before voting for Hillary in Nov because of his stance on fracking

Climate change scares me like nothing else, not just for me (I'm old enough to miss the worst of it) but for everyone that will survive me.

But I live in a state which gets 50% of its power from nuclear. I was once extremely anti-nuclear, am horrified by Fukishima, had a friend who traveled to Chernobyl to write a book on its aftermath, but now think that nuclear is a better bridge to renewables than fracked gas.

I'm not a scientist or an engineer, so the information in the links is going to be hard for me to digest, but it's intriguing to read about using spent fuel rods and weapons as potential fuel. All the climate change experts whose work I follow do think that wind and solar have the potential to provide the power we need, and that although there's an upfront release of CO2 due to manufacturing, the payback is worth it. I haven't read yet why the poster above me disagrees.

[NNadir]

191. Yes, and Trump called for a restoration of American manufacturing.

Cliches become cliches by being true.

Two apply here: "Talk is cheap" and "actions speak louder than wrods."

I know enough about Sanders to doubt he's ever opened a science book in his life. His state is now dependent on electricity generated by burning natural gas. Three years ago it wasn't.

Again, he thought this was a good idea.

Quick, which killed more people in Vermont, radioactivity from Vermont Yankee or smoke from "renewable" wood burning?

I am a scientist, and as a scientist, I know that experiment trumps theory.

The theory that Sanders knows what he's talking about is absurd. The experimental result is that Vermont is now dependent on fracked gas, and all the big mouthed carrying on that Sanders is against the result of his anti-nuke "experiment," at the cost of human lives.

The worship of Sanders and his awful energy ideas is astoundingly awful. He's all talk, and no substance, not quite as bad as the orange nightmare that is occupying the White House, but certainly not the paradigm of honesty either.

[Omaha Steve]

170. IF it is energy and fracking you want to talk about...

Jury members this post is a direct reply to comments on US Senator Saunders position on fracking above! Video is for balance and clarity ONLY!

OS

I will also add that we are OPPD ratepayers. One home out of about 269,500 accounts. The nuclear power math without a spill below. Math gets worse IF there is a spill.

Fukushima disaster | Greenpeace International: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/


OPPD ratepayers will pay more than $1 billion to decommission Fort Calhoun (smallest plant in the USA) nuclear plant: http://www.omaha.com/money/oppd-ratepayers-will-pay-more-than-billion-to-decommission-fort/article_3ca3de9f-b804-5f8c-96ee-0eccfceef3dd.html

QUOTE: "Senator Sanders position is that the world can survive on what he, and many other Democrats call "renewable energy," particularly solar and wind".

We used to get natural gas and oil without fracking.

We donate $4.50 a month on our bill to support the more expensive green power in the system.

http://www.oppd.com/residential/products-programs/residential-green-power/

OPPD SUPPORTS GREEN ENERGY. WILL YOU?
OPPD understands its customers care about the environment. OPPD is committed to sustainable energy, but needs your help. For as little as $4.50 a month, individuals can become a Green Power Partner and support OPPD’s investment in renewable energy.


OPPD's Green Power Program harnesses power from the wind and from landfill gases Enroll
to generate electricity. By 2017, about 30 percent of the energy available for retail sale to OPPD customers will come from renewable sources.

[Omaha Steve]

184. France could close up to 17 nuclear reactors: minister

LBN: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141817111

Source: raw story

10 Jul 2017 at 09:38 ET

Paris (dpa) - France could close up to 17 of its 58 nuclear reactors as part of a plan to reduce the amount of nuclear in its energy mix, environment minister Nicolas Hulot said on Monday.

The government's aim is to reduce the share of nuclear from about three-quarters to just half by 2025.

"Anyone can understand that to reach that objective we will close a certain number of reactors," Hulot told RTL radio.

Hulot said that not all details of the government climate plan, announced on Thursday with the objective of making France carbon-neutral by 2050, had been fully developed yet...........................

[LanternWaste]

230. Kneeling at the altar of a sacred cow prevents providing evidence?

" Sanders emerged as a strong challenger for the presidential nomination because the Democratic Party establishment was perceived to fall short..."



That's one of many possibilities. Most certainly, you'll simply rationalize why you are unable to provide objective evidence to support your allegation as a valid premise. No doubt, you'll also justify why you fail to take other valid possibilities into account as well.

The worship of sacred cows always seems to miss providing evidence (six of one, half a dozen of the other... and each as petulant and without merit as the other, you see.)

[aikoaiko]

8. LOL. The fracture in the party created Bernie 2016, not the other way around

I'm sure VT voters will stick with Bernie.

Carry on Jon Svitavsky.

[The Wielding Truth]

63. I agree.

[GreenPartyVoter]

90. Agreed. Symptom, not cause.

[Snackshack]

109. This. 👆

[Quixote1818]

111. Bingo! nt

[Heaven Sent]

171. I'd be surprised if Mr. Svitavsky

would muster 15%. I don't think he can reach that high. Bernie is the *most* popular politician today, and many issues that Senator Sanders brought up during the primaries are important to me. He is still discussing it today, and that is important to keep it fresh in everyone's mind. I don't understand the vitrol that some people here have for Senator Sanders. He's been on our side forever, even if he doesn't agree with the Democratic Party platform. To me, Sanders represent what a real Democrat should look and act like.

[aikoaiko]

172. The funny thing is he basically seems like a decent liberal.

But it appears that bitterness and scapegoating has taken hold.

Still, I think the "It's Bernie's Fault" commercials will unintentionally hillarious.

[R B Garr]

178. It's good that Democrats finally provide some feedback to the attacks leveled,

many of them completely unproven and just divisive. Nothing wrong with countering that much negativity. I think Bernie's own beliefs are that certain dialogues should be introduced (like when he suggested primarying a wildly popular President Obama), even if not winnable in an election. That looks like what Svitavsky is doing.

Welcome to DU.

[Foamfollower]

9. There are currently three possibilities that I know of.

Whichever one wins the nomination will get money from me.

I want a Democrat in that seat.

[Trial_By_Fire]

10. "Vermont deserves better than a self serving celebrity Senator,"

Self serving? Wow...

Let's see - going all over the US fighting for healthcare in America. One of the
most popular Senators of all America. One of the top Progressive/liberal/Democratic
rated Senator in the Senate.

What we want in office is a progressive liberal for the people/middleclass statesperson...

[CousinIT]

13. Yea that is a ridiculous statement. Bernie Sanders is neither self-serving or a 'celebrity' Senator.

People can say what they will about his run against Clinton - but he is not and never has been self-serving or a "celebrity".

That applies to DONALD TRUMP - but not Bernie Sanders. No freaking WAY.

[Foamfollower]

20. I disagree with you and agree with the Democratic candidate.

[Blue_true]

42. I agree with you. The Democratic candidate pointed to a situation where he and a

group that were assisting poor people needed Bernie's presence and did not get it. I remember that after Vermont Democrats passed Single Payer, they needed $2 billion to get it kicked off and got no help from Bernie in Congress. It is one thing to wax on about Single Payer, but the system has implementation issues that are real. Vermont Democrats paid for their efforts to get Single Payer by losing the Governor's chair. If Bernie had stepped up, the result may have been different. I have a history of not taking sides in a contested election but may in this one.

[Foamfollower]

75. And it appears the primary reason he did not get the at that time mayor's assistance...

was that the mayor could not be the center of attention instead of the organization that was actually providing assistance to the poor. This makes his statement completely accurate.

[Foamfollower]

19. I agree completely with the candidate's statement.

[Trial_By_Fire]

26. Why are you alienating Senator Sanders?

It cannot serve any good purpose...

[CousinIT]

30. I keep wondering that myself

People from center to Left (centrist and progressive) better learn to UNITE and let it go - or plan on losing for the foreseeable future. I don't understand all this hatred - of either Clinton or Sanders.

FFS get OVER it. For your OWN good if not anyone else's.

[white_wolf]

33. I really don't get it.

As disappointed as I was when Sanders lost, I was equally disappointed with Clinton's defeat. Though part of that disappointment is anger at feeling cheated. I just refuse to believe Trump legitimately won.

[Trial_By_Fire]

35. We need to keep our allies...

Thanks for your post...

[Foamfollower]

78. Elections are knock down drag out events.

I am supportive of this candidate and should he win nomination, will fully support him in a General Election against all non-Democratic candidates.

And according to the TOS, so will this site should he be the nominee.

[Foamfollower]

37. How can *I* alienate the Senator?

The Senator alienated me decades ago.

[pirateshipdude]

38. "Why are you alienating Senator Sanders?"

Why does Sanders keep alienating the Democratic base?

[Blue_true]

49. Since Sanders is an Independent the race will come down to

A republican, a Democrat and Sanders in the general. That could help the republican win, that is my only worry. Bernie could end that concern by running as a Democrat in a primary and a Democrat in the General then changing back to Independent after he wins. I am seriously considering supporting the Democrat that emerge from the primary for that party in Vermont in the hope he can pull off an upset in the general.

[Foamfollower]

148. Then Sanders should retire

I ONLY support DEMOCRATS in General Elections.

[Agschmid]

55. LMFAO.

Uh huh sure.

[Foamfollower]

73. The DEMOCRATIC candidate is absolutely 100% spot on about the Independent Senator from Vermont.

[white_wolf]

91. This Democrat is nothing but a GOP pawn, willing or otherwise.

He'll divide the left-leaning voters and help the GOP gain another seat in the Senate.

[Jim Lane]

137. The guy strikes me as a dimwit but I don't think he'll help the GOP

In Bernie's past races, he's won the Democratic primary, declined the nomination, appeared on the November ballot as an independent, and won. That will happen again next year.

This Svitavsky character will run in the Democratic primary and get STOMPED. A whole bunch of fawning posts on DU will turn out not to help him.

The only way he helps the GOP is if, having lost the Democratic primary, he then runs in the general election on some other line or as an independent. At least so far, I haven't seen any indication that he'll do that.

[Foamfollower]

147. Nope, only Independent candidates do that.

I support DEMOCRATS and always will.

[Agschmid]

108. Nope he ain't.

But sure whatever dude.

[R B Garr]

143. +1, he's saying what most people have noticed,

especially about the divisiveness.

[m-lekktor]

14. Everybody knows what is going on here.

it's payback time *snicker*

this will teach him!1

[Nevernose]

16. He's also racist, or at least "non-judicious in his insults"

He's called Ben Carson an Oreo at least twice that I could find, once on Twitter and once to a group of people.

White people have no place judging others' blackness (even if most black people agree with the assessment). If not racist, at the very least it's not smart to do it on the Internet in 2017.

[Trial_By_Fire]

31. Like to see proof that Senator Sanders called Ben Carson an 'oreo'...

[Nevernose]

112. Not Sanders, the guy running against him

He did it on Twitter.

Not the worst thing ever, but not particularly smart, either.

[Trial_By_Fire]

124. My apologizes, Nevernose...

Wasn't sure who that was directed at...

[NCTraveler]

22. Good luck.

It's almost impossible to unseat a well-funded career politician who has done well at bringing home the bacon. Doesn't matter how insignificant his political career has been at the national level.

[Trial_By_Fire]

28. Insignificant?

[NCTraveler]

32. Yes. Few argue against that. Nt

[lunamagica]

83. Yes, insignificant. It has been repeatedly asked to list which of Sanders legislative accomplishents

you (or any of his supporters) is most proud of. The reply? *crickets*

[Zinner88]

145. Veterans healthcare is not insignificant

Bernie negotiated a major bipartisan bill that improved veterans healthcare, and he has done quite a lot of work for veterans. That's why he has gotten awards from many veterans organizations, including the top award from the VFW. He's served as chair of the committee for veterans affairs (and chaired other committees for Democrats). Basically Bernie has always cared more about getting work done in legislation, rather than having to have his name all over bills, so a lot of his work has been done by amendments to bills, including the ACA. That's why Matt Taibbi called Bernie "The Amendment King" when he wrote about him in Rolling Stone. You don't win more than 70% of the votes in your state and get re-elected term after term by both liberals and conservatives unless you are doing the work. People who don't know about Bernie's accomplishments just haven't bothered to do a simple search.

[disillusioned73]

227. Maybe cause you've already made up your mind..

[link:http://observer.com/2016/03/how-bernie-gets-things-done-in-congress-without-being-bought-off/|

"Dubbed the ‘amendment king,’ Mr. Sanders passed more amendments than any other member of Congress during his 16 years in the House of Representatives—despite Republicans holding a majority between 1994 and 2006."

[stevenleser]

24. I'm glad he is doing this. Divisive behavior and rhetoric deserves push-back. nt

[Trial_By_Fire]

27. So Senator Sanders fighting for the people deserves 'push-back'?

Unbelievable...

[stevenleser]

43. Straw man arguments are unconvincing. nt

[Trial_By_Fire]

45. OK, I see you have no valid argument...

Or, trying explaining your original post...

[stevenleser]

48. My original post speaks for itself. nt

[Maven]

29. Good. nt

[white_wolf]

36. This candidate is nothing more than a divisive hack.

All he'll succeed in doing, if he wins, is help the Republicans gain one more seat in the Senate

[SecularMotion]

39. I think it would be a good idea if Bernie Sanders faced some primary opposition.

Bernie Sanders Says It Would Be A ‘Good Idea’ To Primary President Obama

https://thinkprogress.org/bernie-sanders-says-it-would-be-a-good-idea-to-primary-president-obama-313b4f05f3c1

[Trial_By_Fire]

46. Although I am a Sanders supporter, you are right...

There is nothing wrong with challenging *any* person in Congress or the Presidency...

[NastyRiffraff]

162. Thank you.

Some people seem to think nobody should be ALLOWED to run against Sanders. New blood would be good for Vermont. I dunno about the guy challenging him, though.

[Trial_By_Fire]

164. New blood - no. Sanders is the best kind of statesperson we need in all of Congress/Presidency...

[NastyRiffraff]

167. There we have to disagree

I don't like or trust Sanders. I wish there were a good, strong DEMOCRAT to run against him.

[Trial_By_Fire]

168. You don't trust Senator Sanders?

Senator Sanders is one of the most trustworthy statesperson in all of Congress. Your
standards must eliminate 95% of all people in Congress (100% reps, 95% Dems&Ind).

[NastyRiffraff]

169. No, I don't. eom

[Hekate]

47. True. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and what goes around comes around...

I'm out of my allotted cliches for this morning, but I think we understand each other.

[JCanete]

53. primary opposition is fine. Its good. What will be disturbing is if a shit load of money pours into

this campaign from the DNC and other big donors. It may not happen because its probably throwing money away in this case, but if success were a remote chance, I'm sure we'd see that happen. Corporations and rich people don't typically love socialists, and neither does the establishment leadership of any major party, given that they have been built upon current campaign financing models.

[stevenleser]

65. That is exactly what should happen. Sanders is not running as a Democrat

If they face off, Sanders and Svitavsky would meet in the general election, Sanders as an independent, Svitavsky as a Democrat and the Republican nominee.

[JCanete]

66. what should happen, big corporate donors should do what they always do, and buy democracy? nt

[stevenleser]

70. No, I am specifically referring to the DNC. They should support the Democrat. nt

[JCanete]

68. but you make a point that somehow I totally missed. You're right, this won't be a primary.

All of the people who have been bitching and moaning about Stein and Nader are now going to come and support the idea of a candidate playing spoiler? What the fuck?

Oh I get it, it's okay if you are playing spoiler to democratic socialists, but the almighty Democratic party should never be challenged by the left.

[stevenleser]

69. And those who supported Stein and Nader will complain about it.

Yes, interesting scenario

[JCanete]

71. I don't complain about the challenge itself, but again, who ends up paying for it and the actual

agenda of those donors. But while I myself don't begrudge third party candidates, but do begrudge the unbudging system that won't make them viable for anything but spoilers, it is hardly fair play in Sander's case. There's no poetic justice here, since he ran in the Democratic party for the election and then endorsed Clinton when he lost.

[Jim Lane]

138. Based on history, you're probably wrong about the general election.

You assume that this Svitavsky character will be on the general-election ballot as the Democratic nominee. That's extremely unlikely.

From Bernie's Wikipedia bio, this account of his first Senate race:

Sanders entered the race for the U.S. Senate on April 21, 2005, after Senator Jim Jeffords announced that he would not seek a fourth term. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, endorsed Sanders, a critical move as it meant that no Democrat running against Sanders could expect to receive financial help from the party. Sanders was also endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Democratic National Committee chairman and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Dean said in May 2005 that he considered Sanders an ally who "votes with the Democrats 98% of the time".[112] Then-Senator Barack Obama also campaigned for Sanders in Vermont in March 2006.[113] Sanders entered into an agreement with the Democratic Party, much as he had as a congressman, to be listed in their primary but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did.[114][115]

(end excerpt)

Again in 2012, Bernie won the Democratic primary.

I predict that the Democrats in Vermont, not being consumed by irrational bitterness toward Bernie and not interested in refighting the 2016 primaries, will give Bernie an overwhelming primary victory against Svitavsky and anyone else who runs. (Wasn't that Giordano guy planning to move from Mexico to Vermont so that he could fight the good fight? Maybe instead he'll get on the Svitavsky bandwagon.) I further predict that Bernie, having declined the Democratic nomination and having appeared on the November ballot only as an independent, will win re-election in a landslide.

[dflprincess]

58. But this won't be a primary challenge

This guy will run as a Democrat and I assume Bernie will run as an Independent in the general election. That will split the vote and help the Republicans. But by all means let your dislike of Bernie hand a Senate seat to the Cons all because he had the gall to criticize the status quo in the Democratic party.

[stevenleser]

59. Yes, I contacted the campaign and they said that very thing

I will post in a response to the OP

[klook]

97. +27

More on this topic:
Bitter Clinton Supporters Try to Unseat Bernie Sanders in Senate Race

As near as I can tell from a brief Internet search, this guy has no prior experience in political office and moved to Vermont from Maine a couple of years ago. Seems like he's an effective social worker, so hopefully he'll return to that line of work after this quixotic bid fails.

In the meantime, it's too bad that he's going to be a magnet for millions of dollars worth of donations from around the country when those dollars could be spent more effectively in other races.

[white_wolf]

101. Hopefully he doesn't increase the GOP's majority with this stupid race.

I'll never understand how the same people who say we need to defeat the GOP no matter what can support running a candidate who only help them gain more power.

[Jake Stern]

115. Hypocritcally many of the same ones nodding in agreement with primarying Bernie

will shriek at you if you some much as HINT that Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp should be primaried.

[stevenleser]

125. Bernie isn't being primaried. We shouldn't primary Democrats. Bernie will have two

or more General election opponents.

[white_wolf]

136. The really hypocritical thing is the vote records.

Those same people often point out that Manchin votes with the Dems 75% of the time, but ignore the fact that Sanders votes with them about 95%, if not more.

[Demsrule86]

174. Bernie should run as a Democrat ...now is the time to join the Dems...we may end up with

a GOP Senator and that would be awful. They will split the vote as in Maine.

[fishwax]

139. Sanders has won the democratic primary both times he's run for Senate, and likely will again in 2018

This will be a primary challenge, and this candidate will likely not make it through the primary. Sanders likely will, as he did in 2006 and (uncontested) in 2012, win and then decline the democratic nomination, leaving a general election between Sanders as an independent against the republican nominee.

[treestar]

150. I don't think Bernie supporters can say that

At least those who let their dislike of Hillary elect a Republican.

[dflprincess]

165. Just to be clear

Last edited Sun Jul 9, 2017, 11:11 PM - Edit history (1)

I supported Clinton once she received the nomination. I've held one party office or another for the last 40 years. That doesn't mean I'm blind to the problems the drift to the right has caused.

[ms liberty]

52. This is a monumentally bad idea...

If a Democrat challenges Bernie in the GE and there is also a Republican, it splits the votes and the Republican could very possibly win the seat. Look at Vermont's political makeup instead of your deep need to punish Bernie - who btw has caucused with the Dems since he first came to Congress nearly thirty years ago. In Vermont, Bernie pulls in voters who are dems and independents and some republicans as well, partly because he maintains his stance as an independent.
So go ahead Bernie haters, just fucking shoot us all in the foot (or the head, more like) to satisfy the misplaced bitterness you're all wallowing in...after all, it's not like we have any other important fights on our hands.

[RhodeIslandOne]

87. Not going to happen

Snotsky and the Repug will be lucky to combine for 25%

[stevenleser]

60. Here is a comment from the Svitsvsky campaign to me

From the Campaign:
This is not a primary challenge, since Sanders is not a Democrat, we will be facing him in the General Election, along with whomever the Republican candidate is.

[stevenleser]

62. And a further clarification

It's still possible that someone will be on the Democratic Party ballot come August, but thats a different scenario.

[The Wielding Truth]

72. So Svitsvsky plans to split the vote ... and a Republican wins. Makes little sense to me. At least

Bernie is fighting strong for us. He is against Citizens United and fights tooth and nail to improve the day to day lives of the working class.
He is to the left of the DNC, but so are most of us.

We are the Democratic Underground. Strong supporters of the Democratic Party which is made of many degrees of democrats. I did vote proudly for Bernie and then proudly for Hillary.

Both qualified people who are trying to stop the crass heartless RW from pushing out democracy.

[Trial_By_Fire]

76. In VT, Sanders is put on the Democratic ballot in Primaries...

So, no, Svitsvsky and Sanders et.al. will be on the Dem Primary ballot...

[SaschaHM]

80. Typically, Sanders chooses to run on the Democratic ballot.

When/If he wins, he rejects the nomination and just runs as an independent. Sen. Sanders has made no indication that he plans on doing that again next year.

[stevenleser]

81. I guess we will see if that is correct. nt

[Trial_By_Fire]

82. Just a tiny bit of research...

http://vtelectionarchive.sec.state.vt.us/candidates/view/Bernie-Sanders/

[stevenleser]

126. Your little bit of research seems to have backfired on you.

He ran as a Democrat once. Sort of. See Sacha's comment above.

[Trial_By_Fire]

129. Nope. No 'Backfire'....

Still accurate to my point...

[Ken Burch]

128. He's challenging Bernie from the right, and there's no good reason for any D in Vermont to do that.

it can't serve any greater progressive good for Vermont to have a less-progressive junior senator.

BTW...did you see anything on that page that isn't simply an expression of spite?

You'd think Bern ran over his dog or something.

[fishwax]

141. that assumes that Sanders doesn't win the democratic primary, which strikes me as pretty unlikely

[stonecutter357]

64. GOOD how can i send Jon Svitavsky some money ?

[stevenleser]

67. I'll post as soon as they have it

The campaign says they have not done a formal launch and won't start raising money until that time.

[Heaven Sent]

196. Launch may be delayed indefinitely

now that we have learned a bit more about Svitavsky...

[Heaven Sent]

195. Have you withdrawn your statement yet or demanded your refund

for your oversight, sir?

[stonecutter357]

198. what the fuck are you talking about...

[Heaven Sent]

199. If you had bothered to do a *TINY* bit of research

You'd find out as easily what Mr. Svitavsky is about.

His Facebook page is full of homophobic, racist and transphobic rants. Is that what you view as a Democrat?

I didn't know Dixiecrats were still around.

[stonecutter357]

200. Fox and the RWNJ's agree with you..

#fakenews...

[Heaven Sent]

203. Here.

Beam Me up Scottie has provided solid evidence from the man himself.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9313931

I think we have nothing more to discuss. You want to go with identity politics instead of issue politics? Go for it. See how far that gets in Vermont. I'm happy to see that you do not live in Vermont (and further admission: neither do I), and trust the Vermonters to make the right call.

[stonecutter357]

205. and the clintons sell child porn out of a pizza place.......lul..

Beam Me up Scottie ? lol....

[beam me up scottie]

211. You rang? You do realize that those posts actually exist, right?

They're not "fake news" and Jon isn't Hillary.

Let's review his use of bigoted slurs on social media, here he refers to transgender girls as 'lady boys':

https://m.facebook.com/groups/163484380439467?view=permalink&id=948275568627007



And here is just one of several posts where he refers to black people as 'oreo':

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=939064236131976&id=100000852257598



I realize this makes his supporters uncomfortable but calling his posts fake news takes denial to a whole other level.

[stonecutter357]

213. No i did not ring .....

#fakenews...

[beam me up scottie]

214. Actually you did. I'm not Beetlejuice, once is enough. #FactsAreNotFakeNews

[stonecutter357]

215. Did that come from facebook also?

[beam me up scottie]

217. Why don't you check it out? Just click on the highlighted text, it's easy peasy!

[beam me up scottie]

212. This is absolutely fascinating, isn't it?

It's like some sort of social experiment.


"Here are his bigoted posts"

*provides links to posts*

"NUH UH!!! FAKE NEWS!"

[LexVegas]

77. He will have a tough time unseating the establishment candidate. nt

[Ken Burch]

130. It's never anti-establishment to challenge a progressive incumbent from the right.

And it could only be a tragedy if Vermont ended up with less progressive junior senator. It never serves any greater progressive to replace a progressive with a less-progressive.

The guy announced he would never try for single-payer if elected. It's one thing to say it won't happen in the short-term(we all know that)but you can't do anything significantly progressive as a senator if you announce you'll never be for THAT.

[SaschaHM]

79. If he is the Democratic nominee, I hope he gets all the requisite funding/support from the DSCC.

Last edited Sat Jul 8, 2017, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

That being said, Bernie should run for Gov of Vermont. Seems like he could beat Phil Scott with ease and the best thing for his vision/policies would be actual state implementation.

[lunamagica]

84. I agree with everything he says. I'd vote for him if I could

[msongs]

85. the purpose of DU is to support qualified DEMOCRATS over non-democrats nt

[JCanete]

99. cool...what are this guy's qualifications, in your mind?

[Heaven Sent]

197. Still waiting for said qualifications...

I'm sure Mr. Svitavsky is busy scrubbing his website before his 'launch'.

Want some Oreos? I have some upstairs, and may be worth a watch.

[40RatRod]

88. I hope if the Dems put forth a really good candidate...

...Bernie will not run but will give them his full support. We can't afford to repeat 2016.

[Arazi]

104. So the Bernie haters will risk losing the seat to an R? Bernie who caucuses 100% w Dems?

This is incredibly shortsighted. That any Dem would even consider risking a 3 way race and jeopardizing a safe seat in this era is crazy.

Have the haters lost their minds? What happened to pragmatism and all that?

[Quixote1818]

107. Well, you see everything is Bernie's fault. You know Hillary getting 3 million more votes than Trump

The Republican party was far more fractured by Trump than the Democrats this year and the Republican's still squeaked in. Some on DU want group-think. Just one view and that is that the DNC can do no wrong and anyone criticizing it is not really a Democrat. First thing you learn in communications class is that you need devils advocates, you need all types of viewpoints so a party doesn't get tunnel vision and get out of touch with reality.

[Chasstev365]

105. You really HATE Bernie, don't you Don?

[Quixote1818]

106. LOL! This will go nowhere! nt

[Ken Burch]

113. All he's saying is "Bernie is bad"

Doesn't sound like the guy has anything to offer.

He said nothing progressive there.

[Ken Burch]

114. Went to his Facebook page, saw nothing but bile.

This sounds like it's based on a grudge over rival homeless shelters from decades ago.

[JDC]

120. He'll be crushed. They love Bernie in VT. I'm there all the time

[NobodyHere]

121. So does this board have to support the other guy over Sanders?

We're suppose to promote Democrats right?

[Jake Stern]

123. A Democrat that referred to a prominent African American GOP politician as an 'Oreo cookie disaster'

And who has opined that she should be 'hung by the neck until she dies and rots in hell'.

[Jim Lane]

140. No, this will be a Democratic primary. It's open season.

Vermont doesn't have partisan registration. In 2006 and 2012, Bernie won the Democratic primary but chose to appear on the November ballot only as an independent.

Under the ToS, you may post in support of any candidate in a Democratic primary. In the general election, you may not post in support of someone running against the Democratic nominee, but in this case (as in 2006 and 2012) there probably won't be a formal Democratic nominee.

Whether Bernie-haters will be allowed to vent their spleen at him, I leave to the admins. The current ToS language protects Democrats AND "Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders)." A post that violated that rule and that caught four honest jurors would be removed.

[Voltaire2]

207. oh hell no.

Don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.

[Jake Stern]

122. Jon Svitavsky's Facebook post referring to Condoleezza Rice:

"She's an Oreo cookie disaster of a human being"

AND

"Mass murderess who should be arrested tried fairly, then hung by the neck until she dies and rots in hell."

Enjoy!

On edit: Apparently he also used the name of a certain sandwich cookie to refer to Ben Carson.

[Ken Burch]

127. He's against ever even trying for single-payer.

Not just putting it off for the moment, but ever even trying.

Giving up on that forever means giving up on ever creating a decent healthcare system.

And it's not something we gain votes on FROM giving up.

I mention that because it's the only issue he takes a stance on.

And what it tells us is clear-Svitavasky wants to move Vermont politics further to the right...something that can't have any positive effects.

[Zinner88]

146. Being against decent healthcare is a losing game

Jon Ossof in Georgia was also against single payer (and against raising taxes on the extremely wealthy) and he lost to the Republican candidate, even though the DCCC spent millions on his race. Trying to be more like Republicans is a losing game for the Democrats and single payer is something that a majority of voters (even a lot of Republicans) in the USA want. Democrats should be taking positions in line with what the voters want to win elections.

[Mike Nelson]

151. Good for...

...Vermont! Good luck to Bernie and his new challenger... if I were in Vermont, I would be inclined to vote for Bernie, but would also like to hear what his Democratic challenger has to say.

[Vinca]

161. I just looked at his Facebook page. He seems to be promoting a Trump-style, negative campaign.

Vermonters are smarter than that. They don't care about doctored up pictures of Bernie with nasty remarks, they care about policy. I didn't see any of that there.

[DemocraticWing]

176. Svitavsky is racist and homophobic. He opposes many ideas popular with Democrats.

Anybody that would support this guy in a race where clearly the Democrats don't have to run as Republican-lite tells me they care more about primary grudges than anything like social or economic justice.

If the Democratic Party were to embrace Svitavsky, I would hazard a guess that Bernie would still defeat him. But I think for me that would be a step too far, bigots are not welcome in any group I devote time to, which is why I loathe to associate with the Kentucky Democratic Party at times.

[musette_sf]

180. "Svitavsky is racist and homophobic"

I'm sure you can support those allegations with solid facts....

[Arazi]

185. Yeah, Svitazkys own words

https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0By8cF-mBbiS7di1aQ1RoWnVCS2M

Thats a file full of his shitty positions and comments

[musette_sf]

186. My request was for solid facts

and it has yet to be answered.

[Arazi]

188. You aren't seeing the racism and homophobia in this guys own words?

We don't do ourselves any favors being willfully blind but carry on

[musette_sf]

189. My request was for solid facts

Non-substantiated BS that may or not be legitimate posts, pasted in random GoogleDocs from a Google+ account of anonymous troll "PantsStatusZero", do not equal "solid facts".

Still waiting for substantiated information...

[beam me up scottie]

194. Then consider your request granted. Direct links to his post are easy enough to find.

Here's where he admits he "disagrees with homosexuality":

https://m.facebook.com/groups/330661510362749?view=permalink&id=883577811737780



He refers to transgender girls as 'lady boys':

https://m.facebook.com/groups/163484380439467?view=permalink&id=948275568627007



And here is just one of several posts where he refers to black people as 'oreo':

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=939064236131976&id=100000852257598



Enjoy that popcorn.

I think I'll have some myself.

[Heaven Sent]

201. I don't have popcorn now, but do have Oreos to munch...

I wonder if that is offensive here....

[beam me up scottie]

202. Can you imagine what they would say if Bernie called black people 'oreos'?

Holy shit the fallout would be epic. And rightfully so, I would join the chorus.

Yet here we are watching posters defend racial slurs.

[Heaven Sent]

204. Shit like this makes you question yourself...

Are you in the right party? Am I sharing the same party as this asshole?

Yeesh. Hopefully sanity will prevail.

[beam me up scottie]

208. I hope the party won't back this bigot.

Last edited Tue Jul 11, 2017, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)

No one of any note has endorsed him yet and I doubt they will now that he's been exposed.

And if he does run it will be fun to watch him get crushed, so far Vermonters aren't impressed with this clown and that's not going to change.

[musette_sf]

219. The actual links to actual posts are an improvement

over some random anonymous dude's GoogleDoc junk that, shall we say, had zero provenance.

I find the first post linked to, to essentially state that although he does not personally agree, he defends the rights of gays to marry, and states a negative opinion on Kim Davis that I think most sane people at DU would also agree with. Rating: 5% fire, 95% smoke.

I find the third post linked to, refers to a specific, particularly odious and scummy hypocrite as the pejorative you cite. Not "black people". A very specific particularly odious and scummy hypocrite, who has behaved abhorrently in what I would consider a racist manner towards other African-Americans. Not wild about the descriptive term used, but DU was rife with criticism of that specific particularly odious and scummy hypocrite, and some posts here may even have used the same descriptive term. Rating: 5% fire, 95% smoke.

I find the second post linked to, to be problematic. Rating: 100% fire, all smoke is incidental to the fire.

From his posts and what I know about him otherwise, it looks to me like he's not terribly smart, has some views I do not agree with, and will probably be an insignificant challenger to Sen Sanders. Svitavsky's passion for helping the homeless is to be admired, but he's not Senatorial material.

Now see how easy that was? FACTS make everything better.

[beam me up scottie]

221. Wait so you're saying Rice and Carson aren't really black people?

You said he wasn't referring to "black people" and you used scare quotes, is Ben Carson not a black person? How about Condoleezza Rice - do you not consider her black either?

While I despise those politicians in my mind it is NEVER okay to use bigoted slurs. Personally I try to hold Democratic candidates to a higher standard than anonymous Internet users when it comes to bigotry.



And yes, that WAS easy, all we have to do is look for the evidence on Facebook and POOF! There it is! Took me two minutes to find out those screenshots are accurate.

The rest of his unhinged statements are also still available for viewing so see, it's not a conspiracy to slander poor, misunderstood Jon. No one edited his posts, no one used them out of context, no secret agenda to take down a promising Democratic candidate (I'm not saying you're making that argument but others have). No one has anything to explain except Jon and he's not talking.

Oh and his passion for helping the homeless doesn't include people with substance abuse problems so I don't particularly find that admirable. Especially when turning them away on cold Vermont winter nights can be a death sentence. He also uses his shelter GoFundMe account for personal expenses, so again, not impressed with his brand of Christian charity.

We do agree that he isn't a threat to Bernie.

[beam me up scottie]

218. By the way, you're welcome!

I know you've been waiting patiently for those solid facts.

[musette_sf]

220. Why, yes. Yes, I was.

[ecstatic]

223. If true, the irony is that Sanders wants us to court racists & homophobic folks

You know, the deplorables who love trump and, according to Sanders & Co., the only "working people" in the country.

[Voltaire2]

224. that is an interesting attempt to shovel oneself deeper.

So rather than admit that this creep is entirely undeserving of any support, you attempt to make his blatant homophobia and racism Bernie's problem.

[ecstatic]

225. I have no idea who the guy is. Just pointing out the irony. nt

[DemocraticWing]

226. This is ridiculously false and beside the point.

[Blue_Tires]

179. Well, Bernie was screaming about primarying Obama

so he'll just have to deal

[La Lioness Priyanka]

181. will probably be as successful as bernie's primary ing of obama was

but will still be amusing to watch

[GhostofJFK]

182. Wont be able to discuss it much though

Due to TOS which I just read

[La Lioness Priyanka]

183. you can still support the democrat without bashing the independent

it's entirely possible to do

[Voltaire2]

206. You would support this racist homophobe? Seriously?

Why?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

216. I was making an overall point. No idea who this guy is

Also sanders is super popular in Vermont so I doubt this guy is any serious contender

[ecstatic]

222. Good. Sanders' ego is out of control.

He can't absorb new information. He's divisive as hell! Thanks for your service and votes with the gun lobby, but it's time to move on. 👋

[Blue_Tires]

229. oh yeah, no doubt he'll lose by 30 points...

I just like seeing Bernie wear the shoe on the other foot for a change...

[LBM20]

232. He sounds like a nut. But this is a democracy, and nuts get to run.