I am very proud to endorse Bernie Sanders for President!
I am endorsing Bernie Sanders for President for a variety of reasons.
First, I believe that wealth and racial inequality are the biggest challenges facing the United States today. Since Bernie first became an activist in his college days, to his service as a mayor, congressman, and now U.S. Senator, Bernie Sanders has always had a clear vision of how these two injustices damage America, and what actions must be taken to restore equality and justice to our country.
Today in the United States, the top one-tenth of Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Since the Wall Street crash, 58 percent of all new income has flown to the top one percent. This inequality is destroying the values of America, and contributing significantly to growing civic unrest, racism, sexism, and religious discrimination, violence, and poverty, and even further aggravating crises like climate change and substance abuse.
Second, I believe that Bernie Sanders stands for working families, and has dedicated his life to fighting corporate special interests. Throughout his political career, he has opposed policies including NAFTA, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), both the Persian Gulf and Iraq wars, and the Patriot Act. By standing his ground on these critical issues, Bernie Sanders embodies the ideals that make the Democratic Party the party of working people, the party of equality and justice, and the party of change. The fact that he is not a Democrat, to me, speaks to more about how much the Democratic Party has abandoned its values, than it is a reflection on Bernie Sanders. This past Saturday in Worcester, I saw over 3,000 people attend a rally for Bernie Sanders, and feed off the energy of his vision for America.
Third, Bernie Sanders has an impressive track record in passing legislation in Congress, despite the challenges of being a progressive populist in Washington. On climate change, Senator Sanders co-wrote the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants program as part of the 2007 energy bill, which led to over $3.2 billion being appropriated in the 2009 stimulus bill to the program, creating thousands of jobs while moving the country toward energy independence and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. During the 2009-2010 debate on the Affordable Care Act, Senator Sanders fought for provisions that provided $11 billion in new funding for community health centers, and inserted a clause allowing states to establish single-payer health care, which he has always supported nationally. Finally, Senator Sanders is known as the leader in the U.S. Senate on fighting for veterans, successfully co-writing a bipartisan veterans benefits law in 2014, reinforcing his reputation as being “The Wide-Eyed Pragmatist” in Congress.
I believe in Bernie Sanders. I think he would be the kind of president who would keep his focus on making the kinds of changes, whether it’s taking on Wall Street, fighting for a $15 minimum wage, reforming our criminal justice system, giving a fair shake to our nation’s immigrants, protecting women’s rights and fighting for equal pay, opposing mindless wars, expanding LGBT rights, and combating climate change, that are desperately needed if we still want to consider America a vibrant democracy and inspiring world leader, and Americans a prosperous people.
Bernie’s record and his actions as an elected official back my beliefs up, and I’m excited to begin volunteering for Bernie Sanders this Saturday in New Hampshire, kicking off a canvass at his Charlestown campaign office (89 Cambridge Street). If you’d like to join me in supporting a once-in-a-generation candidate, please contact his Massachusetts campaign director Paul Feeney (of IBEW Local 2222, which has endorsed Bernie) at Mass@berniesanders.com, 617-433-VOTE (8683), or visit Bernie’s website at berniesanders.com.
However a Sanders nomination guarantees a GOP victory.
They’ll beat him like a rented mule.
then all bets are off and Nate Silver will have to dynamite all of his models.
Certainly it’s not existing matchup polling, showing Sanders doing as well as Clinton against the Republicans, including a recent Quinnipiac poll showing Sanders 13 points over Trump (and above 50%) compared to Clinton’s 7 point margin (and below 50% total).
Is is that poll saying that only 47% would consider supporting a democratic socialist for President? That’s no doubt a bad number, but 47% is enough to win the general, and for what it’s worth, Clinton’s favorability ratings are ~42% favorable, ~51% unfavorable. A lot of those people who don’t like her will still have to vote for her for her to win.
And all of this is the current state. If somehow he was able to turn around the primary from where it is now, in which Sanders is set up to get smoked in almost every state except Iowa, NH, Maine, VT, we’d be witnessing a true political wave that we haven’t seen in a long time – maybe ever. I strongly support Sanders and I don’t believe that will happen, but if it did, the kind of support he would have won across demographic groups would likely be overwhelming in a general.
Clinton barely mentions him. The GOP barely mentions him. That’s probably why he polls as high as he does – zero negative buzz.
He’s promised to not have enough money to compete in a Presidential election.
If nominated Bernie just isn’t equipped to fight back against the full force of the right-wing noise machine. It’ll be noun, verb, Socialist six times an hour eight hours a night on every channel for months.
Like a rented mule.
Thanks. So largely feelings and assumptions?
This would mean he’s closer to his ceiling right now. That very well may be the case, but if he was able to win the Democratic nomination, it seems unreasonable to think that his profile and support would not have increased dramatically. Remember, the GOP candidate would not be running against the Sanders who hit a limit and comes in a pretty distant second place in a Dem primary. The candidate would be running against Sanders, the Dem nominee who achieved a massive upset against Hillary Clinton. (Again, I think this is an unlikely situation.)
He has?
One would have thought that would be a killer already, but it hasn’t been. His socialism has gotten quite a bit of coverage and it hasn’t hurt as much as would be expected.
Maybe the reason for his strong favorability ratings and people liking him have to do with the kind of politician he is – a no bullshit, honest, and unapologetic one, which is incredibly rare. People may disagree with him, but how he acts does not elicit enmity the same way most normal politicians do.
If we worried about what names Republicans called us we would never win elections again. The Republicans never do. They have to be “severely conservative” in order to win the nomination and they always have a 50/50 shot at winning the presidency in our polarized country. I’m glad we have one credible candidate who is severely socialist, let alone severely liberal.
Trumps entire appeal is he doesn’t care what people think about him and they are attracted to that strength he projects. Bernie reminds me of Trump in the one sense that he doesn’t give two fucks, and voters like that far more than vacillating wimps like Kerry or Jeb. Hillary has pretty big balls too, so I am confident if either is nominated they can beat the Republican. Vote your conscience instead of cowering in a corner worried about what the GOP thinks about you.
Yup. Same as Jamie.
I see Bernie as a total bullshit artist.
Not my opinion, I don’t know what my opinion is (for once). But a pretty common view among many Democrats, so let it be said.
The ‘good luck’ was snarky and sarcastic and it was not a respectful way to address the OP who is one of the few elected officials who regularly posts here himself, engages with us in the comments, and has been a progressive advocate for his entire tenure in the legislature. He laid out a substantive and well argued case, and metheunprogressive retorted with the equivalent of a school yard taunt.
I would be the first Sanders supporter to tell you that he won’t win the nomination and that Hillary, in my judgment, is more prepared to govern than Sanders. But the polls don’t lie, either one of them has an equivalent chance of success against most Republicans and Sanders is currently performing better than Clinton against their frontrunner Donald Trump. Electability is usually a silly metric anyway, but it is especially silly here.
Senator Sanders has a long history of government participation, and as a mayor for 8 years showed superior executive ability. He also has shown better judgment on a number of issues. He is also scandal free, perceived or otherwise. He can spend his time working for the American people rather than ducking bombs thrown by the opposition. As for foreign affairs, presumably her strong point, she has shown serious flaws. Two that stand out are her support for the Iraq Invasion, and her advocacy of a NO FLY ZONE in Syria that is operationally a troubling strategy. Her tendency tends to be more hawkish than Bernie. Americans want to get out of the regime change business. On every issue Bernie is in tune with the American people, and he is running an inclusive campaign. Heck he even went to Liberty University to speak and many in that auditorium were pleased with his remarks. Only his stance on being pro choice was contested, but the rest of what he said was met with respect. Yes, he is what is needed to start the hard work of making us a more united country. At present what I see is the dis-United States. He faces his opposition with “I disagree” or “you are dividing the country”. He is heads and shoulders above Hillary in how he addresses the opposition. He still considers them to be his fellow country persons, and will work to find principled common ground. And I believe him while Hillary makes you wonder. She may but her record is mixed.
Fox News has to pay the rent. Both HRC and BS would spend most of his/her time dealing with bombs from an uncomprimising and unscrupulous opposition. Just the way things are.
There was some serious hope that BHO could change that dynamic, all of which was quite misplaced, and, I think, probably led him to try to “reach out to Republicans” far more than reason or prudence required.
I agree with the “more prepared” comment, to the extent that it means I think that HRC is far more likely to be a stone-cold ruthless political warrior with respect to the FoxNewsRight, which is something Democrats very sorely need. Her performance in the Benghazi hearings last fall strongly reinforced this impression.
It’s been 8 years. I dont want to elect someone to piss away a few years “looking to find principled common ground” with the Congressional GOP. I want someone who is looking to beat them, right out of the gate.
…of anyone in the last few cycles of either party including some incumbents and VPs. Just her eight years as First Lady with substantive involvement gave her enviable access to the top office needing less on-the-job training than anyone else. Preparedness is not a question of do you like all the decisions she has made. Certainly nobody running this year comes close.
translated into effective governing or some extraordinary wisdom. So she’s good at winning peeing contests, but the hard work of making true impact is not very strong. Even John McCain called Bernie honest and trustworthy. Haven’t heard many Republicans giving HRC the same praise. Maybe I missed it somewhere.
…would be able to push back on your assertion. Her knowledge of issues in the Senate has been praised from many corners. She has received high praise both here and abroad (Benghazi sideshow notwithstanding) for her work as Secretary. The kind of First Lady she was puts her at least on par with Vice Presidents in terms of being all but President. I’d like to know where the meme came from that she’s NOT honest and trustworthy. That’s the memo I missed and I would submit that the burden falls on the one making accusations against those qualities.
Or at the table across from President Rouhani or President Putin if we have to negotiate with them? We have serious challenges on the global stage and Bernie doesn’t even care to study or debate them. His solution for ISIS is to keep repeating the same talking points about the Saudi’s fighting ISIS for us, which is an absurd policy to solve that problem. They were more than happy to execute a Shia cleric in cold blood and are going out of their way to provoke a war with Iran, I would not wager on them helping us fight Iran’s enemies anytime soon. And the last thing we might want is their boots on the ground in a theatre where Iran’s boots are already on the ground.
Follow the money and we know they write ISIL’s checks. Hillary Clinton has discussed this and had an in depth strategy to cutting off their funding, cutting their online recruitment, and using limited special operations and air forces to continue the fight. It is factually inaccurate for the Sanders campaign to claim she wants war with Syria or claim that Saudi Arabia of all states will come to our rescue there. It’s almost a Trumpism ‘let dose guys fight da other guys for us and we take all da oil’.
Sanders hasn’t sounded as stupid or inarticulate, but his view of the region is similarly simplistic and lacking in nuance or understanding. Even if he had the better judgment to oppose the war that destabilized this region and Hillary didn’t, I actually think her plans and experience are more capable than his to cleaning up the mess she voted for. It’s sad, but it’s probably true.
Bernie is 100% better than Hillary Clinton on domestic issues. But I have strong doubts he has the interest or experience needed to conduct a better foreign policy, which is ultimately where a President has the most free rein from Congress to operate. Especially this Congress which will kill any of the domestic proposals either of these potential President’s would propose.
I’ll take your point and move on. I don’t know if there really is a respectful way to say “Nominating this guy will cost us the election,” which again is not my opinion, but it is an opinion many people hold. My point is just that it’s healthier to say it and discuss it than not say it (I think it is anyway — I could be wrong on that).
Anyway, blog on.
‘(I am worried) nominating this guy will cost us the election’ is perfectly fine. Sarcastically wishing good luck with your candidate and then comparing him to a rented mule is not a respectful way to do it. And anyway, no poll has shown he will cost us the election and most polls show there is no way he will win the nomination so it’s a mute point. Vote for the guy or gal you like, end of story.
I’ve been leaning Sanders way for a long time, and I can never remember disagreeing with jconway on anything, but I disagree on both counts here: electability is the ultimate issue. Electability is what is going to protect this country from a disturbing Know-Nothing/Anti-Intellectual/Crypto-Fascist trend that is sweeping the world, not just the United States. At this point, how can it be unreasonable to be very concerned about whether Bernie as the Democratic nominee could carry states like Ohio and Florida. It is exactly what a smart movement or party must be weighing at exactly this time.
Finally, since when is it snarky to say good luck? Let’s not over-police ourselves here.
Finally
Remember when everyone said Kerry was more electable than Dean because he votes for the war and served in the military? And then they swift boated him anyway and we lost with a nominee who ran a campaign I wasn’t proud to support like Dean’s. I would even argue Deans campaign nominated Obama, elected him and Warren, and made it safe to be a real Democrat again.
I remember electability being trotted out to defend votes for war and against gay rights. So I am very leery of people assuming the liberal never wins. Their side always nominates the conservative, win or lose, which is why they govern as conservatives when they win.
Deans campaign got me involved in politics and led me straight to Deval and Obama, who knows what kind of good Bernie’s is doing for the next generation.
My sister in law and her boyfriend are seven years younger than me, they failed to vote in 2012 but they are voting for Bernie in 2016. That’s how we get more people involved and build a majority. The boyfriends dad is a marine and voting for his first Democrat because Bernie votes for vets and he doesn’t want to be shipped to Syria. He is outpolling Hillary against Rubio or Trump, only person she’s outpolling him against is Jeb. An electable and bland corporate Republican their base wants nothing to do with. Maybe it’s time our base asserts itself too. Last time I checked that’s what a primary is for. If you want us to fall in line for the fall, don’t gloat about our man getting beaten like an animal.
…but I think the point in this context is that Sanders has shown to more than hold is own in polling matchups against potential GOP nominees.
But it’s an opinion largely based on feelings and belied by the available evidence.
If an old, grumpy democratic socialist from Vermont would lose badly to any Republican whereas Hillary Clinton would beat almost any GOP candidate, then why is that old, grumpy democratic socialist from Vermont performing about the same (and sometimes better than) as Hillary Clinton in matchups with those Republicans?
I understand it’s the common view, but I’d like to see a real argument for it rather than a nasty comment about how badly he would get beat.
As I said in my other comment, I don’t expect him to be the nominee, but if he somehow won, he would have pulled one of the biggest political upsets in US history and would have had to have done so by winning over huge swaths of minority voters, mainstream democrats, likely some serious establishment support, and older voters.
If he accomplished that, we have to believe that he’d get crushed among independent voters in a general or that large numbers of Dems would stay home?
Maybe that could happen, but given current polling, independents seem to like him. He has huge margins for a variety of specific questions (shares my values, is honest and trustworthy, cares about the needs of people like me), beats the GOP candidates among independents, and has a great net favorability rating among independents (47% fav, 26% un) – which looks pretty great compared to Clinton’s (38% fav, 56% un) among the same group.
I thought you were applauding Jamie Eldridge’s endorsement rather than the vitriol of methueninvective.
Participation awards, if you will.
There is no major risk that Sanders will win the nomination, largely thanks to DWS and her cronies at the DNC, so there is no reason for anyone who supports him not to. Sanders has raised a staggering amount of money, filled more stadiums than Trump or Clinton, and is the most exciting thing this political season. He is bringing in a lot of people who normally don’t vote and if they do, normally don’t vote for the Democrat.
Either one of our potential nominees can win the White House against any of our potential opponents. It’s a 45-50 electorate with the 5% leaning our way at the end of the day. Hillary or Sanders won’t do worse than Obama 2012 or better than Obama 2008. Barring a major upset to the economy or God forbid a major attack on our soil, I don’t see the Republicans nominating one of their more electable candidates this cycle. Even if they do, he will be saddled with moving far to the right and alienating Latinos and women to win over Trump voters.
Is Sanders better on the issues and a more honest, consistent and trustworthy figure than Secretary Clinton? Yes. Is she far more credible and experiences on foreign policy and national security and as a world leader? Yes. That’s the choice to me. Hence why I have no qualms about Sanders in the primary and Hillary in the general. Neither should most progressives on either side.
It’s unlikely, and I’m not taking bets, but it could happen. The more exposure he gets, the more support he seems to generate. So I agree with everything but your pessimistic first sentence. Your last paragraph deserves to be emphasized, as it’s the stance of most reasonable people I know.
One of the things that really turns me off this election has been the idea that it is Hilary Clinton’s “turn”. Don’t get me wrong – if she is the nominee, then I will vote for her, but the race started with the presumption – not sure who started it – that she would be the candidate. That doesn’t seem to be in the spirit of our democracy.
I have been a Bernie Sanders fan for a number of years; he appears quite frequently on the Thom Hartmann show. I’m not particularly enamored by Hillary Clinton. I do think that she is by far a more corporate-oriented candidate than Bernie Sanders, and I have always believed that corporations have moved into a position in this country where they are not benefiting ordinary citizens.
That is a primary reason I will vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary, because I agree with his positions that corporate power must be reigned in, that banks are behaving in ways that are unhealthy for the economy, and that our economic problems is the #1 issue – something that I know that people who live in larger wealthy cities like Boston, NYC, and DC may not fully appreciate.
I’ve chalked HRC’s presumptive win over B?S for a variety of reasons, in no particular order:
* Mr. Sander’s self-label of a Socialist and Democratic Socialist;
* Mr. Sanders is Jewish;
* Mr. Sanders has a Brooklyn accent;
* Mr. Sanders physical appearance — particularly his wispy hair and sometimes less-than-perfectly-pressed suits;
* Mr. Sanders’ farther-left than typical for the Dems positions on a number of issues;
* Mr. Sanders’ populism making fundraising from the FIRE community exceedingly difficult.
Note that none of these reasons are good reasons to support or not support Bernie Sanders. It’s just always seemed to me that the news clip versions of Mr. Sanders will consistently come off as less than flattering to the Democratic primary electorate. I just don’t see how DWS’ actions, real or imagined, are nearly as impactful with respect to B?S.
Brooklyn accents and populism are in this season on both sides of the aisle, physical appearance doesn’t matter, and he has been surprisingly competitive with HRC on fundraising with small donors. FIRE has been irrelevant on both sides of the aisle as well, remember Jeb still has all their dollars on the Republican side and almost no substantial support from that primary’s electorate. So I don’t see those issues as hurting Bernie.
What hurt him most, in my view, was taking the Clintons and their follies and foibles off the table and responding very poorly to the Paris terror attacks by demanding we still keep debating income inequality. The Benghazi hearings, Biden staying out, and the Paris attacks were the moments were he lost his lead in Iowa and never recovered. He would have to win both contests to have a prayer of winning the nomination.
I do think DWS has hurt him by holding debates in the television equivalent of the middle of nowhere and having very few of them which has been a major difference between this year and 2008. Obama gained a lot of exposure and became viewed as an increasingly mainstream alternative to Clinton the longer the primary process went on and the more debates they had, even if Hillary held her own and arguably was a better debater in some respects. That has been a major difference this year, and it has hurt the party since the Republicans have sucked all the media attention. It will hurt Hillary’s readiness to debate the Republican nominee and answer hard questions in the general election. And we can lay all of that at DWS’ feet.
…can be demonstrated to have caused any actual impact on this race.
A lot can be laid at her feet. The irony is Sanders and O Malley still would’ve lost without her interference, but it was another way for the corporate wing of the party to take a shit on the grassroots and to let swing voters know the insiders are rigging it for the Clinton’s. Not to mention the horrific 2014 cycle. People with integrity like Steve Israel fell on their swords, she blackmailed the President into keeping her job instead. Oh and backing Republicans in Florida and publicly opposing the President’s foreign policy. Add that to the list.
Give Reince credit, no one would argue he is in the tank for anyone and he has treated Donald Trump far more fairly than DWS has treated Sanders or O’Malley.
My point is, as you acknowledge in your second sentence, is that her actions probably have no bearing on the outcome of this presidential primary. However, what are you referring to by “blackmailed the President into keeping her job”? Does she have some dirty little secret about Obama that he doesn’t want out?
This story has a link to his theory:
I’m not sure that issue affects this race directly, but it absolutely demonstrates she is the wrong kind of leader for that position.
She’d look like a fool of the highest order with not only zero evidence, but plenty of evidence in the opposite direction.
Why would Obama cower in terror and not do it? On the other hand, why hasn’t he done it?
Thank you, Jamie! I remember asking you recently (at the last Maynard Town Democratic Committee) about whether you’d be endorsing Bernie, and I am overjoyed to see that you have done so. I am more proud than ever to have you as my State Senator. Looking forward to canvassing with you in NH and of course right here in MA!