I attended the Bernie Sanders Boston Convention rally on October 3rd. I have not attended any presidential rallies this cycle but this one was close by and I was curious as to what all the unexpected energy and enthusiasm about Bernie Sanders was all about. If you hear that it was a huge rally with over 20,000 people you can believe them…the convention center was stuffed and apparently a few thousand stood outside. Below are my observations and thoughts on the event:
1. First, and I believe most importantly, Sanders speaks very bluntly and makes specific proposals. Whether you agree with him or not you know exactly where he stands and can clearly envision what his presidency would be like. I can’t recall a presidential candidate ever speaking so specifically about their policies and why they matter. And he clearly believes in his policies. This, I think, is the key to his and Donald Trump’s success. Both of these very different candidates are leading their rivals because when they speak you know what they are saying. I have not been to a Trump rally but if I get chance I want to go. I suspect he is resonating because he also is a breathe of straight talking fresh air. No obfuscations, triangulations, petty rationalizations, half-truths, quarter truths and lots of maybes, what ifs and buts.
2. The audience was huge but visually struck me as mostly very young and white. The Obama rallies I attended seemed to have a wider range of ages and were more racially diverse. If Sanders started drawing a more diverse following his candidacy would grow even stronger. Strangely, many of his policies would substantially benefit minorities and certainly middle and lower income people – but I think these groups need some convincing and, for now, may be staying with more traditional candidates.
3. Sanders spoke substantively for well over an hour and the young audience paid close attention and seemed to listen carefully. Again a tribute to speaking specifically, clearly and passionately. Also a tribute to a new generation of serious, respectful, confident and capable young folks who think about the issues and get involved. A very good sign for our future.
One of the great benefits we all are getting from the Sander’s candidacy is that it’s attracting and involving many new young voters and citizens. This is where he is getting his lead from. It’s great for our democracy that so many young people are getting involved and interested in political discussion and activities as a result of Sander’s candidacy.
4. And, for those who don’t agree with or like Sander’s policies, don’t despair – the interest in and excitement about politics generated by the Sander’s candidacy will reap many benefits all along the spectrum of our politics as time goes on. A number of the young folks attending his rallies will later form different views as they grow and change…and some of them will become leaders in the republican and other parties. But they will have gotten their start by attending such rallies as this one and seeing firsthand how politics and can be both fun and interesting – if not downright exciting.
Yes, and this reminds me of a past post of mine. Where is the Democratic outreach to this demographic? I am also struck by the number of Republicans I know (all white males in there 50’s & 60’s) who are supporting Sanders. Where is the outreach for them in the Democratic Party? We can win elections with the more racially diverse and women’s vote, but it’s always a struggle, in my opinion, because we have no outreach in the demographics that we do poorly in.
If we were to look at this as a business plan that wanted to expand its customer base, we would look at markets we are not in and look for growth there.
Yes, Bernie needs to somehow get his message a to more racially diverse range of voters, but the Democratic Party needs to get their message to the voters who are backing Sanders, not just this election, all elections.
I agree with you that an increasing number of former Republican voters are supporting Sanders. Unless they change their party registration, they can’t vote for him in Massachusetts.
Unenrolled voters can pull a Democratic ballot and vote for him in the primary.
But I and others in my circle do have respect for Sen Sanders. He is truthful, experienced, genuine, and therefore trustworthy. Qualities which today are lacking in so many candidates.
-Bernie is blowing away Obama in total contributors compared to Obama in 2007
-He’s polling better than Obama was at this point in 2007.
-He’s polling similarly at a national level than Obama was at this point in 2007. In some polls, better.
-He’s drawing bigger crowds, by far and wide, than Obama was at this point in 2007 — including a Boston rally 150% larger than Obama’s biggest Boston rally.
-He’s doing all of this against a Hillary Clinton who was able to gain even more establishment strength than she had in 2007.
-His doing all this despite the fact that the media is virtually ignoring him, and spent more time trying to dismiss him than actually cover his campaign.
What Bernie’s been able to do at a grassroots level is virtually unprecedented in the history of American campaigns, and he’s doing it when corporations and big money is more powerful than ever.
It’s time to stop dismissing him and admitting the fact that Bernie has a huge chance of actually winning this thing.
my second point was supposed to read
-He’s polling better in early states than Obama was at this point in 2007.
And how is this different from Dean in 2004?
Not a single elected official was there to introduce him in Boston. Not a single state rep, for heaven’s sake.
Obama had Ted fricken Kennedy, which counted for a lot more than a large September rally. Who does Bernie have?
Bernie Sanders has the implicit support of Elizabeth Warren — arguably the most influential and effective progressive Senator in office today. He is, after all, the leading proponent of “The Warren Agenda”. I don’t recall Howard Dean having anything comparable.
With all due respect to the late Ted Kennedy, I think Elizabeth Warren is doing more for Bernie Sanders — not to mention the Democratic Party and, for that matter, America — than Ted Kennedy did in 2004 or 2008. Although Mr. Kennedy was well-loved by Massachusetts Democrats, his agenda never had the widespread appeal that the Warren Agenda has today. The Warren Agenda and the Bernie Sanders campaign are synergistic in a way that Ted Kennedy’s never was. The Warren Agenda unites the 99% — the Kennedy agenda divided it.
In an election season where wealth concentration is the top issue for the electorate and at least some of the candidates, I’m not sure an endorsement by any Kennedy would even be an asset. The Kennedy family epitomizes America’s wealthy — for better or worse.
Bernie Sanders is already drawing larger crowds than any primary candidate I can remember. Howard Dean did nothing comparable.
I think Bernie Sanders is doing just fine. I’ll take Bernie Sanders and the Warren Agenda over Barack Obama and the Kennedy Agenda any time.
I’ve read plenty of retrospectives that say Ted Kennedy is the reason Obama was able to outlast history. Kennedy gave him access to states where he was basically unknown. Nor do I think Warren’s hypothetical endorsement — with nothing I’ve seen as proof — is delivering much. Warren is a huge figure in our country, but I don’t think she has a rolodex of 20 people in Washington state that can get Bernie started on the ground, they way Kennedy could for Obama.
In particular, I think your point about the Elizabeth Warren rolodex is right on the money.
Charley, don’t you think that is part of the problem? I have no idea if Bernie Sanders can pull this off, and I have no problem with Secretary Clinton, but if a Democratic is going to win don’t we need real proposals and real enthusiasm? The issues he is raising are critically important, and they are clearly motivating a large group of people across the country. This sense not just among the media but among some activists that he “can’t win” I think is a real disservice to his supporters.
The premise that it will be a “proper” thing if “Hillary is able to … co-opt the proposals and enthusiasm” is anathema to me. That premise, in my view, accounts for a very large part of the current dysfunction of our political process.
How on earth do we genuinely encourage young people and minorities to embrace our party’s agenda and values when we so flagrantly seek to betray them?
Perhaps you meant something more constructive like “leverage” or “build on”.
I realized after submitting this that my comment was unclear about who I referred to. I should have written:
“Perhaps charley-on-the-mta meant something more constructive like “leverage” or “build on.”
I see a lot of exception being taken to Charlies brief comment. Let me take a stab at the same thing.
If Bernie gets the nod, then wow. Very different ball game for sure.
But frankly I doubt it. So, arguendo, assume he’s not the nominee. What, then might his lasting contribution be?
Sanders himself says the is starting a political “revolution.” This is the long game, not an all-or-nothing bid for the white house
What does it mean? Will an organization outlive his candidacy, and if so what will it do?
Will Sanders’ candidacy lift more progressives into Congress? That would certainly shift things in a good direction. It will inhibit a President Bush and improve a President Clinton.
I’m skeptical about the value of things like party-platform planks or number of Sanders talking points incorporated into Clinton’s campaign. But all things have their place I guess.
So maybe I’m wrong and Sanders beats Clinton and then the battle is truly joined. I won’t complain.
But just bear with me a little longer: if Clinton beats Sanders, when we look back in 10 years, what would we like to be able to say that Sanders accomplished?
He’s already caused Ms. Clinton to oppose the Keystone Pipeline and to oppose the TPP. He’s already caused Ms. Clinton to propose steps to deal with banks that are “too big to fail”.
Not bad for a “idealistic” socialist who can’t possible win the primary.
I know this is unfair and probably shouldn’t be said, but I’m going to say it anyway: I am REALLY REALLY tired of “President Bush” versus “President Clinton”. I loved Bill Clinton. He is, so far, easily the best president of my 63 year lifetime. Still, I’ve had enough. The Rolling Stones were a great rock and roll band in 1964. By the time they announced their 2015 US tour, I had heard enough.
If Hillary Clinton were not the wife of Bill Clinton, would she be a serious candidate? If Jeb Bush were not the brother of George W. Bush and son of George H. Bush, would he be a serious candidate?
I am truly weary of “Bush” versus “Clinton”. I’ve listened to “President Bush” for 12 years and “President Clinton” for 8 years.
Yes, she’s better than all the GOP clowns. Yes, she’s better than Jeb Bush for sure. Yes, I’ll vote for her if it comes to that.
But honestly — can’t we do better than yet another Bush and yet another Clinton?
> If Hillary Clinton were not the wife of Bill Clinton, would she be a serious candidate?
Yes.
First of all, she wasn’t merely a FLOTUS in the wallpaper sense. She worked as FLOTUS, both with POTUS on politics and away from POTUS. Now look, I can’t quantify it, but I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton gained a hell of a lot more political chops as FLOTUS than at least 90% of the First Ladies this country has ever had. I don’t think it was new, either. I think she gained more as the wife of an AG, and then wife of a governor for 12 years.
Secondly, she was a US Senator for eight years. She might have gained a qualification or two during that time.
Thirdly, she ran a well-run, ultimately unsuccessful campaign for POTUS. Campaigning and governing are different, but she might have gained a qualification or two during that time, too.
Fourthly, she was Secretary of State for four years. She might have gained a qualification or two during that time, also.
Some people like her political positions, others don’t. That’s cool. But she’s clearly both a skilled politician and an experienced one. She’s got more White House experience than any other candidate, she’s got eight years in Congress, and she’s got four years of top notch foreign policy experience. Oh, and before all that, she was a successful lawyer, so she’s got a little bit of judicial chops too.
It might be that she was able to gain some of that experience because she was married to Bill Clinton. So what? The fact is, she has it now, and we shouldn’t elect her — or not elect her — because of her last name.
I agree that she has a long resume.
I agree that she was a remarkably effective FLOTUS. Eleanor Roosevelt (one of her self-professed icons) is the only remotely comparable First Lady I can imagine. Nevertheless, she was the wrong choice to lead Bill Clinton’s attempt to provide universal health care.
I grant you that she gained qualifications as Senator. Sadly, on the issues I care about, she consistently landed on the wrong side. She supported the Patriot Act. She supported the Iraq invasion. She was far too friendly with Wall Street and big banking. I understand how she got there. I’m just saying that from my perspective, to the extent that her Senate career qualifies her as a candidate, it resulted in a candidate that I do not support. It is not surprising to me, therefore, that she is now evolving on many or most of those issues.
I guess I agree with you that she is “qualified”, in the sense you mean it. She is qualified approximately to the same extent that John Kerry was qualified (leaving aside her last name).
I agree with you that we should not choose based on her last name. I just wish we would move beyond “Satisfaction” and “Brown Sugar”.
I get that she’s taken positions that are too right-leaning for lots of Dems/libs/progressives/etc. Knowing you and your priorities, s’tom, I’d be surprised if Clinton was your candidate. That’s cool. I respect (and typically more or less agree with) your positions where you disagree with Hillary Clinton. I’ve got no problem with someone from the left (or the right) declaring that Hillary Clinton’s positions or past actions aren’t aligned with that person’s values, and therefore won’t support Hillary Clinton for president (either in primary, general, or both). Hey, we’ve got to find the candidate that resonates, and there’s plenty of room to disagree.
I’ll definitely support Hillary Clinton in the general if she is our nominee.
support Bernie Sanders if he wins the nomination.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
there is no doubt in my mind that she is the best prepared and qualified to be President.
But this is what the campaign is all about. The people will decide and we will have to live with the consequences of our collective decision. That’s why elections matter.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
When we look back in 10 years, maybe we should be more concerned about whether we have a higher minimum wage, lower debt for college students, and less income and wealth inequality in our country (among many other important issues), rather than whether Clinton beat Sanders or Sanders beat Clinton.
That’s why I don’t think we should lightly dismiss the chance of Sanders winning, like Charley did in this intro. Any candidate who is credibly raising these issues and getting people engaged in the political process to support these issues is making a real impact – and one that we shouldn’t dismiss out of hand.
you deal with realistic choices.
If someone has a better idea than Secretary Clinton I’m all ears. I just haven’t heard it. So I’m standing with Hillary because she had the guts to enter “the arena” and fight.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I’m working with the Sanders campaign here on Cape Cod and our strongest leader is a high school senior. When we old folks fuss about outreach to non-whites, he’s right there with his classmates and ideas for how to pull them in. We are developing outreach plans to the post-college/manual labor class as well right now.
As i said on another thread a few minutes ago my biggest concern is with another disabled presidency, and I don’t hold out a lot of hope that Mr. Sanders can escape that completely.
However I also can’t imagine Mrs. Clinton being able to function much better than Mr. Obama has been. She has so many problems in her political career history.
I’ve seen Sanders inspire a lot of people I didn’t expect him to. My buddy at the Central Square firehouse who voted for Brown twice and did a tour in Afghanistan is with Bernie 100%, because of his record with vets and unions. He’s working to get his union to endorse. My future sister in law hasn’t voted since she was eligible, but registered to vote for Bernie this year along with her gun toting boyfriend who is a son of a Marine who likes Bernie on vets issues and they both like his focus on college debt. Black activist friends are embracing him, including folks I know deeply embedded in BLM in Chicago and Detroit. Leftist friends who always were suspicious of Obama trust Bernie-these are folks that are Nader or McKinney voters who are usually too pure to pull D. A Texas based evangelical missionary team I befriended through my fiancée have been really impressed with him since the Liberty University speech, as has my evangelical and NRA member cousin up in NH. So we will see.
Now this is definitely a bubble based on Cambridge, Chicago and personal connections. But when people see him-they seem to like what they see. I think a great end game for the Sanders campaign would be harnessing this movement and deploying it for and well past the presidential campaign. And he can do that now whether he wins or not.
would vote for him.
There are probably a number of Republicans that would vote for him just on the “balance” principle, assuming Congress stays the same.
There are also more votes from Republicans if one of the crazies makes it all the way (slim chance, but you never know).