This whole "down ticket" distraction

[pat_k]

We don't make donations to Sanders for other races. We donate to his campaign so he can create a power base from which he can more effectively act. He needs all the cash he can get to do it.

I have little doubt that as nominee, he will select, endorse, and promote candidates for the US House, Senate, and other key offices who can defeat Republicans in their districts, who share his values, and who want his support.

And if he doesn't win the nomination, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he formed an organization in the model of DFA, focused and getting liberal Dems elected to all levels of government.

I don't even know if any "down ticket" Dems have sought his support. for goodness sake.

I would hate to see him funneling money into the DNC, DCCC, or DSCC, unless of course those organizations undergo a major transformation. His only alternative would be a more selective approach, and that would just be a major distraction now.

Can you imagine all the crap it would stir up at this point? Why did you support this primary candidate over this other one. Why are you promoting this race or that race and not this one? Isn't so and so more in line with your positions? Blah, blah, blah, blah.

All this "you're selfish" is a distraction. It's like asking him "why aren't you an establishment Dem raising money for establishment organizations that are afraid to rock anyone's boat? If you've been watching him, his reasons should be obvious.

Shhhheeesh

[snowy owl]

1. Hillary's $18 Million "Victory Fund" could be spent helping her campaign-ZERO to do with issues.

Hillary's $18 Million "Victory Fund" could be spent helping her campaign
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/3/1465719/-Hillary-s-18-Million-Victory-Fund-could-be-spent-helping-her-campaign

[MisterP]

2. this faction has lost 11 Governors, 13 Senators, 69 Reps, and 913 state seats in 6 years

this faction has left themselves with 26% of the electorate--and like it that way, since they'll just shamble limply to vote for whoever they're told for no matter what said candidate does or says

this faction has punted on Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, John Russell, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, Weiland, Wendy Davis, Grimes

this faction has run puntERS even when they polled behind the Republican: Coakley, Mahoney, Alex Sink, and Mary Burke

[Gothmog]

3. Lack of commitment to the party will not help Sanders with super delegates

Sanders is not going to be the nominee but if he was, the national convention would be too late to recruit candidates

[pat_k]

7. If he wins a majority of the pledged delegates,

...superdelegates will not overrule. They will ensure that enough change to give him the nomination. If they overrule the outcome of the "pledged" contest, they will fracture the party and put a win in Nov at serious risk.

Same goes if Hillary wins the pledged delegate count. There's no way they would swing it to Bernie.

When your aim is to revitalize the party, you don't do it by supporting the status quo. You do it by demonstrating money raising power, and then using that power as leverage for change. It's a process. We are in phase 1, where it would be nonsensical for him to funnel money to the DNC.
.

[Blue Meany]

4. I think this narrrative is actually aimed at superdelegates, many of whom are themselves candidates

who benefit from money given to Hillary's Super PACs via the DNC--a reminder that they will not get the same support from Sanders, since he doesn't have a Super PAC. As time goes on, I hope and expect that Bernie Sanders will use his network of donors to raise money for progressive candidates, allowing them some of the independence that he has to take progressive stands. But I don't think he should distribute it through the DNC, which has done everything it can to obstruct his candidacy and is doing nothing to balance the power of corporations within the party.

[pat_k]

6. His money-raising power does constitutes leverage.

Perhaps leverage that could shape policies advocated by candidates interested in gaining his support --- LATER in the process.

And yes, the current narrative is aimed at superdelegates. The thing is, if Bernie wins the pledged delegate majority, the superdelegates will follow suit -- or they will ensure that enough do to give him the nomination. It is extremely unlikely they will take the election from the pledged delegate winner. If they did, they'd fracture the party and likely lose in Nov. I believe they understand the gravity of the consequences.

The same goes if Hillary wins the majority of the pledged delegates. There is no way superdelegates would swing it to Bernie. (And I kind of wish Ted Devine had never implied this. It was a mistake.)

As far as "down ticket," it's so obvious why Bernie is not supporting the DNC as it currently operates that asking the question is intended to create a storm in a teacup. Unfortunately, it has "legs" as they say. I've had a conversation with my father in law, who seems to get that Bernie is doing nothing "wrong." But it does appear to give him a negative impression of Sandrs.

Oh well.

[Red Oak]

5. Which "downticket" dems are doing ANYTHING for the Sanders campaign?

Why would he spend time right now helping those who are actively working against his campaign?

[kenn3d]

8. Exactly

Most Sanders supporters know that the DNC and the establishment Democrats lined up behind the Clinton machine are largely opposed to the changes in the party platform that Bernie is proposing. The Committee's thumb has been on the scale for Hillary from the start and no one seriously denies that. Straight down-ticket support for these establishment candidates mostly works against what the Sanders movement is trying to achieve. Not to say that their losing to Republicans would help at all.

But we ARE working down-ticket mainly to support Democratic party candidates whose campaigns are aligned with the principles Bernie (and Elizabeth Warren) is promoting, including those who are challenging incumbent Democrats in the primaries. Lots of us have contributed (via MoveOn and elsewise) to help elect a number of "Bernicrat" candidates, and especially Tim Canova who is challeging DWS.

I think Bernie will be more inclined to support the party when and if they begin to show him the respect and support he has earned, or at least the impartiality they should have shown from the start of the race.

[baldguy]

9. It's a funny revolution that has only one guy in power.

Winning down-ticket races is essential. You try to marginalize them as "a distraction" simply because your guy no inclination to lift a finger to help win them, and has no clue how to do it if he did.

That's no strategy for bringing about a revolution. It's suicide. And that's not metaphorical, considering the alternative is having a Trump or a Cruz in the White House with the full backing of a GOP Congress.

[pat_k]

10. Of course. Winning down ticket is essential. Re-read my op.

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2016, 11:27 PM - Edit history (3)

And this from kenn3d

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1632853

[fun n serious]

11. He should not have ran on a D ticket if he isn't loyal than.. nt

[pat_k]

12. He would never run third-party.

He's not an idiot.

As a presidential candidate, he can do more to influence the party from within than from outside. It's a great reason to become a Democrat. He has an opportunity to revitalize the party. Something it desperately needs.

You don't help transform the DNC by funneling money to it as it stands. There are many ways to shape the party through more strategic use of his power to raise funds.

You almost sound like the old "America, love it or leave it" people. That is, if you on't like things the way they are, don't try to change it, just go somewhere else.