Total misunderstanding of Bernie Supporters by the Establishment

[kcjohn1]

They (establishment) are under the impression that Bernie can control and bring home these voters once the primary is finished. He will make a speech where he says we need to unite behind Clinton, and she will lead us to the promised land defeating Trump, and those evil GOPers.

Even if Bernie were to make this speech on behalf of Clinton, Bernie's supporters are unlikely to fall in line. They don't understand why they support Bernie. Bernie is not cult like figure. They are not supporting him because they love him and he is charismatic character. Most of his supporters didn't even know who he was 10 months ago.

People support Bernie because of two things.

1) They fundamentally are against the establishment system (including the Democratic party), and they feel a political and economic revolution needs to occur within the system. They are unhappy with the status qua.

2) They support Bernie's positions. Single payer system. Free Public Tuition. Punishing wall-street/corporations. Hate trade agreements. etc.

This is not like in 08 where Obama/Clinton had spat. Obama ran great marketing campaign, but fundamentally they were two similar candidates. Not much difference in positions. Bernie / Clinton are all for intents of purposes in different parties. Their campaign is similar to that of the general given the number of differences.

[msongs]

1. hated hillary before they ever heard of bernie and will continue to do so nt

[kcjohn1]

4. I have hated her for awhile

But I have loved Bernie longer.

I suspect your statement is true for many Sanders supporters. If you hate the status qua and establishment, you will hate Hillary as she embodes all that is wrong with the establishment.

[JoePhilly]

91. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. There is one point you forgot

3.- People are pissed, and when you prevent peaceful revolutions, violent ones will cone.

And yes, I have talked to enough people to know they are getting radicalized.

[larkrake]

45. that is what a revolution is

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. There is a theory of political science that elections can also be PEACEFUL revolutions

that is what Kennedy was alluding to in his inaugural address.

[sadoldgirl]

70. True, but look what happened to him

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. I know what happened to him, but that was not his theory

he was being a good parrot, in that sense. Though he was right.

[CrowCityDem]

3. It's not if he can control them, but if he gives a damn to try.

[kcjohn1]

6. I'm interested to see how much he tries

Bernie is only in this for his positions, and he would be a fool to think Hillary would advance anything he cares about. Guy can't be bought off with cushy lobbying firms, speeches or even "higher" profile positions.

So the question will be how the DNC convinces him to get Clinton elected? I suspect they will pursue you can't allow Trump to become president. It will be interesting how much he budges.

[msanthrope]

5. Then he has no leverage. If he can't bring the votes, he has no leverage. nt

[kcjohn1]

8. Bernie has all the leverage

It is the DNC that has no leverage because there is nothing they can buy him off with.

[msanthrope]

11. Leverage to do what? If he can't bring votes, then he has no leverage on policy

What are you going to do... threaten riots?

[Trenzalore]

12. Give it a week

Its in the denial stage. There will be upturned tables at coffee houses next week.

[Ed Suspicious]

32. You guys are really concerned with the orientation of furniture!

[Trenzalore]

39. I need a place to sit nt.

[Mike__M]

55. Seems so

Keeping the furniture feet on the ground today, boots on the ground tomorrow.

[Number23]

43. !

Brilliant.

[kcjohn1]

13. I don't know, what happens if he runs Independant?

Or if he tells his voters to vote Green? Or he tells his voters there is not much difference between Trump/Clinton?

[beaglelover]

19. His political career is over if he does that. Then he can go on the speech circuit and get $250K

per 1 hour speech! Won't that be fabulous??????

[kcjohn1]

30. Really? LOL

How much does Bernie owe to the DNC for his political success? You forget he has run as independent in Vermont, and has the highest approval ratings for any Senator. There is nothing they can do to him politically.

He was never going to get $250K on the circuit because he is not for sell. It's not even an option that is open to him. If he was interested, he could have sold his office for much higher price because he is from small state.

[jeff47]

86. Oh no!! The 74-year-old's career will be over!!!

[msanthrope]

20. He can't run as an Independent. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

33. Oh? You sure about that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Do not take the bait

they know better. He is not running as an indie

[HooptieWagon]

101. Hillarians desparately want him to run as an Indie.

Then they can deflect the blame for Clinton's loss on Sanders.
Unfortunately for them, Hillary and her sidekick Debbie are going to own this upcoming fiasco.

[WhiteTara]

60. Time is running out for an independent run

and he has promised that he won't let Trump in the WH. I don't think he wants to completely burn his reputation down.

[NJCher]

46. pure lack of votes

She'll lose without Bernie supporters.

And quite frankly, I don't think Bernie can ask his supporters to do diddly. Bernie has stuck to his issues, and these are the issues of his constituency.

Clinton has a credibility problem, so no promises will mean anything.

Frankly, she's SOL due to her track record, the speeches, etc.


Cher

[msanthrope]

56. No.....the vast majority of Bernie supporters will support her. nt

[pmorlan1]

22. He Does Have Leverage

Not all Sanders supporters are currently Bernie or Bust but because the Clinton campaign doesn't know which voter is or isn't they have been spraying us all as a group. Yeah, that's right in trying to eliminate the Bernie or Busters they have been driving more and more voters into that camp. Brilliant tactic.

As James Carville said - Hillary needs Bernie but Bernie doesn't need Hillary. At least Carville recognizes Bernie's leverage. It's a pity the rest of the Democratic establishment doesn't judging by what I've been seeing in the news. You guys have let your authoritarian instincts get in the way of your political instincts and it's going to bite you in the ass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. ^^^^THIS^^^^

plus a donor list from hell

[pmorlan1]

37. Yes Indeed

but the Clinton campaign is so focused on squashing us that they are blind to the obvious.

People say that the Clinton campaign will do anything to win. I say they will do almost anything to win because the one thing that would actually help them (courting Sanders supporters) they refuse to do out of childish spite and hubris.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Yup,I agree

I warned them months ago... that is all I could do in good conscience,

[kerry-is-my-prez]

87. You all are the opponents along with Bernie. Shouldn't they be squashing the opponent?

[JackRiddler]

95. "Childish spite and hubris"

is a relatively minor part of it.

Clintonism is neoliberalism in economics and domestic policy and more than ever a hawkish foreign policy. Beneath the pandering and deception of sometime-progressive rhetoric and the identity politics (which accounts for much of the voter support), there is a core political substance that is hostile to the unapologetic and consistent New Deal politics of Sanders. What is she going to do to court his supporters, endorse single payer and tuition-free public universities? Denounce Kissinger and call for an end to military interventionism? Break with Saudi Arabia and endorse a peace initiative with Iran and the BRICS? Her options, if she wanted them, are also limited.

[FSogol]

7. How can you claim to be a great leader if you can't even led the people who support you?

[kcjohn1]

9. You haven't listen to Bernies speeches have you?

He doesn't claim to be great leader. His always talking about grass roots campaign which means inherently the campaign is driven by the masses not the top leadership.

[FSogol]

14. I'm pretty sure he's running to be President, which is the head leadership position

in this country. His speeches do not operate like Occupy meetings with everyone giving their opinion, Sanders speeches are lectures from the Senator. Not sure what you are listening to.

[larkrake]

47. No, Presidents can only lead the armed forces. Congress are our body of leaders

[FSogol]

65. President is the Chief Executive of the US and runs the executive office.

Basic civics?

[Fawke Em]

48. Thanks for making the OP's point.

You aren't getting it.

[Ed Suspicious]

35. You are so not getting it.

[FSogol]

38. He's not getting it.

It being the Democratic nomination.

[Mike__M]

62. You are so not getting it.

[NJCher]

54. see post 46

You see, unlike Trump or Clinton supporters, Bernie supporters are very independent, passionate, and they have minds of their own. Unlike Trump or Clinton, they're not going to fall in line and play follow the leader.

Go to a few Bernie meetings and you'll see it fast enough.

Furthermore, if Bernie vanished tomorrow, his movement will still be there, passionate and strong as ever.

That's what you get when you stick to the issues. This is an issues-oriented campaign.


Cher

[quickesst]

74. Bernie supporters have a mind of their own...

...but if Nevada is any indication, it takes about a hundred of them to make one mind, and not a very stable one.

[NJCher]

85. need to catch the latest on that

and I'll be back to you.


Cher

[quickesst]

88. OK...

[NJCher]

97. then there's this

Apparently Rachel Maddow used footage of chairs being thrown at a wrestling match for her story on the Nevada affair:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280198867


Cher

[quickesst]

98. You're correct

I did see one guy pick up a chair but someone else grabbed it and so the person put it down thankfully. Now to the greater point of my post. Does this excuse the Bernie supporters behavior of mob mentality threats, calling a liberal Senator a bitch, and making threatening phone calls to the chairperson? Just because they did not do one thing does not excuse the myriad of despicable things they did do.

[NJCher]

99. question

I did see one guy pick up a chair but someone else grabbed it and so the person put it down thankfully.

Did you see this on real NV footage or on the simulation stuff being used on shows like Rachel?

Not putting you to the trouble of URLs, but any suggestions on keywords would be appreciated. Would like to see it myself.

Has it been verified someone called Boxer a bitch? And also the threatening phone calls to the chairperson?

I think it's a glass half empty/glass half full situation, but you're right about this: Just because they did not do one thing does not excuse the myriad of despicable things they did do.

That doesn't mean I believe they did those things, but just that I want to look at each action individually.


Cher

[quickesst]

100. I have formed my own opinion...

... from media, what has been said here, and I have a tendency to believe Barbara Boxer. I have not found a video or anything like that where she is called a b****. I have only the claims of eye-witness accounts, which are numerous. Apparently they were unhappy because Clinton had more delegates there than Bernie did. That would be on the shoulders of Bernie's people.
Here is Barbara Boxer's comments.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/barbara-boxer-bernie-sanders-nevada-convention


Maybe this link will explain the situation to you on the claims of manipulation by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. Politifact rates the claim false. Also comments from Ms. Lange.
http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

[NJCher]

96. turns out to be more playing the media

by the DNC. Take a look at the video clips on this page, particularly the one that tells what Nina Turner saw, and you'll find it is another media misrepresentation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017373653

I just can't imagine why MSNBC would want to misrepresent the situation like this. Hey, they're my cable company--Comcast. Why on earth would a big cable company want to slant the news like this? I mean, what's in it for them? I just don't know.




Cher

[eastwestdem]

10. By staying in long after he clearly lost, then continually telling his supporters "we can win" he is

fueling the fire of discontent. This is absolutely his fault. Everyone but him and those he had brainwashed knew it was over on Super Tuesday. I take that back. He knew it then, but wasn't ready to go back to his boring senate job. He and Jane wanted to see how far they could push this ride. As he saw his supporters becoming more and more agitated, Sanders did nothing. He is still doing essentially nothing but furthering the divisive language.

He is either 1) an ego maniac 2) a traitor to the Party or 3) a sadist. Possibly all three.

[Trenzalore]

16. I think there is a 50 year record of pissing on the democratic party

I'm not really sure why anyone is surprised that a person who has chosen to not affiliate with a political party that largely supports his policy positions but doesn't do so because being in a political party has some grit and grime and compromise to it is gleefully pouring gasoline onto a fire in his 70s when there are no real consequences for him.

[eastwestdem]

17. Good point. nt

[Trenzalore]

29. Sorry to continue

Add to it he is a back bencher from Vermont that would have a good week if he was invited onto Hardball 3 years ago and now gets to pretend he is a rock star. Never got that type of adulation anytime in his life. If pouring some gasoline on a fire against a political party he has bashed for 50 years extends that for 4 weeks, why would he stop?

I knew he wasn't going to play nicely and go quietly into the night for the greater good from the beginning. Nothing in his 30 years of public life suggest he is willing to sacrifice anything for the greater good unless he benefits from it.

[kcjohn1]

25. Tell which of his positions Dems have supported?

Single payer?
NAFTA?
Iraq war?
Wall-street deregulation?
etc

[Trenzalore]

36. Paul Wellstone was a democrat and so was Evan Bayh

We are unfortunately in a bipolar world where some people can be elected in liberal leaning states with very liberal positions and some people can be elected in conservative states with center right positions. It is the reality of being a member of a National Political Party when there are only two. Human beings like to assemble into teams and most of the time we choose between two.

Bernie created his own reality in Vermont. Which you can do when there are only 600,000 people living in your state and it is probably in the top 3 of liberal attitudes.

He has been shitting at the notion of the national party for 50 years and has little interest in the very real world problem that getting a democrat elected in Texas is different than getting a democrat elected in Vermont.

The fact he wants to "Bern" it down when he is in 70s and been bitching about the democratic party for 50 years shouldn't shock anyone and I'm sure his supporters have some ideological purity reason he is doing it other than he doesn't like the democratic party and he's an old man with nothing to lose.

[kcjohn1]

40. Single payer polls 75% with Dems, and 53% with general public

I could understand if your argument was true. But congress is not responding to peoples views. They are responding to who is paying them. Bayh was not responding to his constitutes. He was thinking how about enrich himself.

The reason we don't have single payer is simple. Wide spread corruption, including the majority of dems.

[Trenzalore]

44. ACA

Before one line of the ACA was enacted the republicans took congress. Obama sacrificed congress for probably 15 years in order to get marginal change passed.

You really think a battle going back to when Harry Truman was President is as simple as political corruption. You are changing the way people see their doctors. It doesn't take much for an opposition to scare people on that. Particularly when making shit up is the general strategy of the opposition.

[kcjohn1]

52. ACA was written by the insurance companies

Probably set back single payer by 50 years.

Perfect example. Dems had huge majorities and huge presidential mandate. Single payer was NOT EVEN on the table. The starting negotiation position was GOP plan from the early 90s. What does that say about the Dem party?

Using the ACA as example of how Dems share the same values as someone like Bernie is the worst case example. The the best thing about the ACA is Medicaid expansion, and that could have being done without all the bad parts of the ACA.

[Trenzalore]

66. Is Bernie going to be king?

Because ACA was the best that could be done politically with a 50 state party.

I'm not a fan of the ACA and was pretty pissed when they got rid of the public option....however a guy who can't win the democratic nomination is somehow going to have 60 Senators and a majority in the House to do his bidding?

Obama is/was pretty fantastic and I don't view him as a traitor. I think he got through what he could get through.

[kcjohn1]

71. Where we disagree is you think

The Dems want what you and I want (if you are the left of the political system).

Before you can achieve anything, you have to want it first. You somehow think Dems want single payer and the only thing stopping them is those bad GOPers.

It took me a while to see the light. Majority of the things you want, the Dem party does NOT.

[Trenzalore]

76. I'm an adult

I think there are those in the party that support what I want, those that are in the party for career reasons, and those that are shills.

I also know there is an alternative and it is pretty dark.

[RobertEarl]

69. Hahahaha

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)

I know you didn't mean a funny post, but it is.

Funny because it is so whacked and dumb it made me laugh.

And you are precisely the kind of voter we don't want to be hanging around with.

[Mnpaul]

15. But when will they figure it out?

A. before the convention
B. after the convention
C. November
D. never - see Nader

[seabeyond]

18. Sanders is more establishment than any of the others. What a con he has running you guys.

[kcjohn1]

23. Definition

a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation).

Is your argument that Bernie is in the ruling class more than someone like Clinton?

You probably also think congress listens to the voice of the people more than their 1% financiers.

[seabeyond]

26. Yes, Sanders in the congress for almost three decades. Fits well. Establishment.

[kcjohn1]

31. Establishment is those in power. Bernie has being on the outside fighting those on the inside

Clinton is as establishment as it gets. If we are arguing this point, there is no need for further discussion.

[seabeyond]

34. He is smack in the middle of those with power. Amazing how contrive an old white man in congress

for three decades, not actually the epitome of establishment. You buy it. Boggles the mind.

[beachbumbob]

21. I have listen to sanders rant since he was first elected to congress

But a ranting guy doesn't translate to leadership....his weak response on the fiasco in Nevada...his ego is and his followers are out of control..

[larkrake]

51. I do not see an ego. He says "WE" It is Hillary who says "I"

[RufusTFirefly]

24. "Obama ran great marketing campaign, but fundamentally they were two similar candidates."

Excellent observations. Your last paragraph tied things together nicely.

Well done!

[hrmjustin]

41. You do what you are going to do.

All the Sanders supporters I know say they will vote for Hillary.

[Fawke Em]

50. Funny. None of the Sanders supporters I know way they vote for her.

And I bet I know more Sanders supporters than you do.

[hrmjustin]

53. I don't know where you live so I can't speak to that.

But I know a lot. I live in NYC.

[larkrake]

42. YUP

[Dem2]

49. They aren't that different, really

Their positions are very close to each other, those who claim they are far apart are doing so based on en emotional response (negative to Hillary, positive to Bernie), which is fine, let's just be honest about it.

[kcjohn1]

59. Couldn't disagree more

To me the primary is like GOP vs Old Style Dem.

Fundamentally Hillary as neoliberal arrives her positions from the viewpoint of the free market. I fundamentally view corporations/wall-street as inherently corrupting influence and the job of the government is to limit their power/influence.

[Dem2]

63. Take an inch and divide it into thousandths on an inch

and say "wow, look how big a difference 1/4" is!"

Bernie isn't as anti-market as you think he his, Hillary isn't nearly as corporate "shill" as her biggest detractors imply.

[kcjohn1]

68. Hillary is not the worst Dem in being corporate shill

She is not doing anything different than the other corrupt politicians (vast majority from both parties are corrupt). The only difference is she is much better than them at this game, and grift much more.

[Dem2]

72. As I said

I think the "hatred" of Hillary has exaggerated her mighty "powers". She's just a human being like you and me.

[JCMach1]

57. I don't think Clinton was ever going to get the people who she wasn't going to get...

There is a Naderite, Green, even Paulist bent to some of Bernie's people. She was never going to get most of those folks.

[kcjohn1]

64. True statement

I would have never voted for Hillary even without Bernie running his primary. I will say though this primary has being very eye opening as I was supporter of Obama, and fundamentally believed in Dems until recently.

~10M voted for Sanders so far (probably ~12M by end of primary). I suspect a lot of voters have become disillusioned about the status quo like myself and have lost all trust in major institutions including the Democratic party. If Hillary loses 1/3rd of Bernie voters that is 4M voters.

Romney lost by 3M votes to Obama.

[JCMach1]

84. the thing is 'where' those voters came from...

How many were first time voters, indys, greenys..., etc.

I won't say it doesn't matter, it does. But, it matters in ways we don't quite have a feel for yet.

Suppose it falls out like Nader in 2000 with 3-6% of the far left vote staying home, or voting third party. Well, you might think... it will be close!

Maybe not, the demographics have shifted quite a bit in terms of minorities and how often women vote.

There are also just MORE liberals than in 2000... almost 24% of the electorate.

Trump is the wildcard... Right now he is getting 55% of the white vote against Clinton in the latest FOX poll. That is actually 4% worse than Romney. (Note this was a POSITIVE POLL for Trump). Forget the polls... if Trump only gets 55% any dem wins in a landslide.

I think Sanders would do just fine against Trump... However, I don't think that is a slamdunk either.

[elleng]

58. IF 'misunderstanding,'

DELIBERATE; it's NOT that difficult to understand.

[Eric J in MN]

61. Sanders has said he can't 'snap' his fingers and

...get people to vote for HRC.

He said she'd have to adopt some of his positions to win them over.

[sadoldgirl]

83. Actually, if I remember his words correctly

he said it is up to her to win the voters.

OTOH she told repugs that they and she share
the same values, which makes one wonder why
she is running as a Dem.

[Trust Buster]

77. Point #3: We don't really care what you think Sanders controls or not.......LOL

[kcjohn1]

79. You cared enough to respond to my post, no?

[Trust Buster]

80. Just poking around to figure out if there are limits to Sanders supporters narcissistic tendencies.

[seabeyond]

81. I have another on another thread, begging us to beg him. Wtf is this, lol. Too funny. Nt

[Trust Buster]

82. Another fine example that the far Left and far Right share high levels of narcissism.....LOL

[seabeyond]

89. Damn straight. Certainly not about the greater good. Entitlement.

[Trust Buster]

90. +1000

[RKP5637]

78. And the divide is not going away. If not Bernie, then it will be someone new. Millions and

millions of people in the US are fed up. Just simply fed up with it all. The establishment democratic party has failed to capture the restlessness and those simply fed up with the status quo system. Hence, they have fractured the democratic party wherein a lot of Trump supporters could be democratic supporters. This country is in deep trouble.

[Shandris]

92. I honestly wonder what it's like for them.

You know. The ones who jeered and cheered Dylan's 'Times They Are A'Changin'' at the Establishment while the Establishment crumbled under the 'revolution'.

Now they have become the same people they overthrew (more than a couple lessons to be observed there, not the least of which is the reminder that every new system is born with the seeds of its own destruction) and they are just now starting to realize it. It's...cute, in an odd sort of way. That panicked response, the wild look in the eyes. Or it's opposite, the sneering, smug, shark-flat dead eyes devoid of care because it's all been cremated away. You know the type.

And the changes made now will be blown away by the failures of the very people who make it, again. It's the curse of any system. Perhaps we should try systemless sometime.

[anigbrowl]

93. 'Most of his supporters didn't even know who he was 10 months ago.'

Which tells you how shallow their political engagement really is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. I don't think that's entirely true. Sanders is unique in one regard...

... he has the credibility and believably that no other elected official can match.

We believe him, even if we don't agree with everything he proposes.

Trust is more important than policy.

No one trusts or believes Clinton, not even her supporters.