What did Sanders actually get?

Bernie

" … a formal set of principal goals which are supported by a political party or individual candidate, in order to appeal to the general public, for the ultimate purpose of garnering the general public's support and votes about complicated topics or issues. "Plank" is the term often given to the components of the political platform – the opinions and viewpoints about individual topics, as held by a party, person, or organization. The word "plank" depicts a component of an overall political platform, as a metaphorical reference to a basic stage made out of boards or planks of wood. The metaphor can return to its literal origin when public speaking or debates are actually held upon a physical platform."  wiki on party platforms

———–

The Sanderian Revolution has acknowledged with what grace it could manage its defeat at the hands of the Clinton machine and the DNC.

This grave disappointment has been accepted with the solace provided by the adoption of several Democratic Party platform planks dear to the hearts of the mutineers;  TPP rejection (maybe), Glass-Stiegel resurrection, etc.

There is only one problem with this.  She doesn't have to do any of this after Inauguration Day.  And, pilgrims, since the GOP is very likely to retain control of the House of Representatives, she would have the built-in excuse of "the Republicans wouldn't let me do it."

So, in effect, the Sanders people got nothing.  pl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to What did Sanders actually get?

  1. AEL says:

    Well, they did get the DNC to agree to make a number of the super-delegates become pledged delgates.

  2. Bill H says:

    A party platform is a figment of imagination, mentioned in passing at the beginning of a convention and then dumped in the basement and rendered nonexistant until the beginning of the next convention. It is worth less than the proverbial, “bucket of warm spit.” Your last sentence is precisely correct, but doesn’t really need the “in effect” part.

  3. kooshy says:

    “So, in effect, the Sanders people got nothing.”
    Colonel IMO this was obvious from day one, that is, since Sanders was not electable everyone including Sanders supporters should have knew that he had no chance, white American Jew with NY accent from the most liberal NE state.
    For DNC and Clinton Machine he was a useful idiot to keep the liberal dissenters ( as many as he could) in and not let them crossover.

  4. morongobill says:

    Chris Hedges sure went off on Sanders in an article posted today over at Truthdig.
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_1_percents_useful_idiots_20160726
    At least the young people got involved in a cause, unfortunately they learned a hard lesson about power.

  5. ambrit says:

    I speculated over on another site that the discouragement of the younger cohort of potential voters could be a desired outcome of the Sanders run, and it’s very obvious ‘fixing’ by the DNC. The younger cohort, if Sanders supporters are a representative sample of the population of younger voters, shows signs of being fed up with “politics as usual.” What better way to neuter this group than to instill defeatism in them through a nasty and ruthless display of political corruption? A shameless and dismissive repudiation of ‘progressive’ platform planks in the Thursday speech would seal the deal. That speech will tell almost all about how she intends to go forward.
    At the November election, I’d lay odds on both parties watching very closely who the ex-Sanders supporters vote for.

  6. Matthew says:

    Col: Bernie should have watched the video from one of the debates in 2008 where both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA.

  7. r whitman says:

    Within the next 15-20 years, 3 main points of Sanders run will actually happen in the US regardless of the party. 1.Single payer national health care insurance. 2.Low cost or no cost tuition at public colleges and universities and 3.The breakup or severe limitation of large financial institutions.

  8. doug says:

    It’s the mirror image where the social conservatives (Cruz), globalists, neoconservatives, evangelicals etc. were thrown bones in the Republican platform. A significant fraction of these would prefer HRC over DJT. Likely the same is true with the Bernie wing. Had the Republicans nominated Cruz there would be considerably more unity amongst Democrats behind HRC. OTOH, had the Democrats nominated Bernie there would also be much more unity behind DJT.
    In both cases, as in all past cases where there was intra-party conflict the platform is simply created by those in party power at the time to soothe feelings and provide the desired “optics” during the coronations.
    But the platforms mean nothing.

  9. michael brenner says:

    Embargoed until 6 P.M. EDT July 27 2016
    Barack Obama Address to the Democratic Convention
    Philadelphia July 27, 2016
    240 years ago some folks did something that only could happen here, in America. They innovated in creating a new kind of political system. It was built on the liberty principle, and committed to the idea that all of us are created equal. Unity in diversity. That’s what has made the United States great, that’s why we’re Number 1 !
    Now we are engaged in a great political battle, testing whether that nation, or anybody else who follows the path we blazed, can overcome division – of race, of ethnic identity and – especially – of gender. We are gathered here in the cradle of the Constitution preparing for a great contest in that war. We have come to perform two tasks: to memorialize a final resting place for that candidate who died here, that the Democratic Party might live; and to celebrate an historic turning-point in our History. This, in prime time, we do. But, in a larger sense, we can’t dedicate – we can’t sanctify this convention. The brave women and men, politically viable and politically defunct, who struggled to make a difference have done it already, above what my oratorical talent can add or detract. The rest of the world will little note, nor long remember what I say here; although it can never forget the tremendous show of democracy they put on.
    So, instead, let us the triumphant survivors move on to the next great task remaining before us — that, from our honored losers and the wounded winner, we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the full measure of ambition, vanity and money — that this convention make sure that those casualties have not been suffered in vain; that the Democratic Party shall have a new birth of free will, and that government of the folks, by the folks, for the folks, shall not end – going forward.
    God bless you all; God bless the Democratic Party

  10. Larry Kart says:

    They got the satisfaction of throwing a big scare into the Clinton machine during the primary season and of perhaps laying the groundwork for another more successful attempt next time. American politics is full of examples of movements/candidates who didn’t make it the first time and did so later on, e.g. Lincoln in 1856 and then in 1860, Reagan the first time and then the next time. Of course, there are plenty of counter examples, too.

  11. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I suspect that most young people, if they stay around to vote, will be voting for Clinton after all. What I’d been fascinated by is a significant minority of the Sanders voters who are neither young nor liberal and what they might do.

  12. turcopolier says:

    Larry Kart
    “Lincoln in 1856” John C. Fremont, the Pathfinder, was the Republican candidate in 1856. pl

  13. Peter says:

    If they have any sense at all they will vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. They just learned a tough lesson on how the 2 big parties actually work. Then there’s the 20,000+ emails proving the DNC colluded against Sanders, leaving the only sensible option of voting third party

  14. Old Microbiologist says:

    Sanders should have withdrawn his support for Clinton after the leaks proved the conspiracy was real. Every vote that shifts away from Clinton is effectively a vote for Trump. If enough are angry enough to be motivated to vote this could be a deal changer. However, it is a long way to November yet and a lot is still in play. More popcorn!

  15. Trey N says:

    Yep, and Lincoln only won because the Republican opposition was fractured into three parts: the Democrats, who nominated IL Senator Stephen A Douglas; the Southern Democrats, who nominated Vice-President of the US John C Breckinridge; and the remnants of the recently imploded Whig Party which tried to reorganize as the Constitutional Union Party and ran TN Senator John Bell.
    Lincoln won with only 40% of the popular vote (and 54% of the electoral college = 18 out of 33 votes).
    Interestingly, there are 4 (“viable”??) national political parties running candidates again this election: Republicans, Democrats, Greens and Libertarians. With the nation appearing to be as polarized now as it was in 1860, I’m curious to see how the interplay of the different political factions is going to play out this time around in November….

  16. HankP says:

    So, the same way it always works in coalition politics. Which is, as long as Sanders can get votes and support for his positions the party will pay attention to him.

  17. hans says:

    At a national level Bernie’s folks don’t seem to have got anything but at the state and county level there should be some gains for them. Looks as if they might get someone on the county commission, on the district court bench, into the state senate and just maybe grab a long-time GOP congressional seat. I hear some of this is happening state-wide. The Bernie folks claim something around 4,000 of their loyalists are running for various offices across the country; if they can keep up this level of engagement for a few cycles, get another firecracker like Bernie…
    Additionally, these Bernie inspired neophytes are young, whereas the core of the GOP around here are out of the Goldwater / Reagan cadres of the 60s~80s.

  18. Dabbler says:

    It’s unlikely that Bernie would have gotten anything more. They weren’t going to let him make the keynote speech; they weren’t going to give him a veto over the VP choice. Maybe not endorsing would have been a better move for him than it proved to be for Cruz.
    Given “a warm bucket of spit”, some of my ancestors would’ve tried to make a profit on it.

  19. Peter says:

    I’m curious what makes you so sure these things will happen. Socializing medicine still does nothing to address why it is so expensive in the first place. That burden will fall on the taxpayers and the problem won’t be solved. Free college tuition also does nothing to address why it’s so expensive in the first place, putting that burden on the taxpayers as well.
    Neither of those 2 issues will be solved whatsoever until the root cause of the high prices (government intervention) is addressed.

  20. Tyler says:

    Trump got the resurrection of Glass Steagal, rejection of TPP, and keeping us out of NATO entanglements in the RNC platform.
    Come home, western man.

  21. Scare? How could Hellary lose? She had the primaries rigged!

  22. “So, in effect, the Sanders people got nothing.”
    Not so. Bernie now gets to use a DNC airplane to campaign for Hellary. That’s more than nothing!

  23. walrus says:

    it was not enough that Bernie loses. He must be humiliated as a warning to others.

  24. JohnH says:

    There is no reason for anyone not in a swing state to vote for either Clinton or Trump. In most states, the outcome is already known. California will go for Clinton, Texas for Trump, etc., etc.
    Young people could do the country a great service by voting for third parties not dominated by big money. Sitting at home only conveys apathy. Voting third party voices disapproval of both establishment choices.

  25. JohnH says:

    Obama’s speech will be the big test for Bernie supporters. Can Obama (and the Democratic Party) leave Philadelphia unscathed by their unrelenting support for TPP? Will Bernie supporters stand for their principles in the face of an unrelenting party?

  26. turcopolier says:

    John H
    600 Bernistas walked out last night when Bill came on stage? The MSM is not reporting that. pl

  27. David says:

    Colonel Lang,
    According to Huffington Post “hundreds of supporters walked out”.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-walkout-convention_us_5797f65be4b0d3568f85107b
    Whether or not it is true, I do not know, but I would like to think that it is true.
    I donated money to both Jim Webb and to Bernie Sanders.
    I gave considerably more money to Sanders since he stayed in the race.
    I did not give him money to see him endorse Hillary Clinton. I do not think either Clinton should be allowed anywhere near the White House.
    Regards,
    David

  28. Larry Kart says:

    Didn’t mean that Lincoln was the nominee in 1856 but that he made a name for himself that year as the face of a movement in the nascent Republican Party. Likewise, Reagan was not the nominee in 1976 but by challenging Gerald Ford he made a name for himself (beyond the name he already had made as governor of California) and then was the successful nominee in 1980.

  29. charly says:

    College tuition is so expensive because students not only select for the best education but also for the best (READ RICHEST) people who go to that college so people will select the most expensive college they (their parents?) can afford. That is why the most expensive students in a state paid system is something like 20k (and much cheaper for something like law) while something cheap to teach with big classes like law at Harvard is something like 200k in a student(parents) paying system.
    In fact the high prices in American education is due to not having enough government intervention as education is a veblen good

  30. Larry Kart says:

    Can’t tell whether your “She had the primaries rigged!” is serious or ironic, but the Clintonistas sure behaved as though they were scared. The DNC emails certainly suggest that they had the wind up.

  31. michael brenner says:

    Lincoln’s well-publicized Cooper Union speech was the key in making him a national figure. Of course, those were the days when people actually paid attention to what candidates said rather than their hair rinse or pants suits.

  32. steve says:

    “Neither of those 2 issues will be solved whatsoever until the root cause of the high prices (government intervention) is addressed.”
    Yet every other industrialized nation has far more “government intervention” in the healthcare delivery system and pays far less than under out system.
    Single payer is far less expensive. Medicare’s admin overhead is approximately 3%, whereas in the private insurance business I have seen figures as high as 18%.
    You say that under some sort of government healthcare, the “burden will fall on the taxpayers.” It already does, if not in the form of taxes but in the form of premiums. We pay far more per capita than any other industrialized nation for our healthcare.

  33. Harry says:

    Of course you are right. My only consolation is that HRC will probably get nothing as well.

  34. Matthew says:

    Col: They didn’t walk out; they were role playing as 600 shards of glass from that glass ceiling Hillary’s breaking through…..(retch).
    Frankly, if this convention gets any more self-congratulatory, poor Bernie will forced to go full Bukharin and denounce himself for his deviationalism. See http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Stalinism.

  35. Swamp Yankee says:

    This Bernie supporter and his immediate family are voting for Stein. I don’t think we’ll be the only ones who bolt.
    Reminds me of the scene in “Lawrence of Arabia” when Col. Brighton starts castigating Auda abu Tayeh (Anthony Quinn) for going home after the last train raid of the fighting season.
    “Oh, so when you’ve gotten what you want you’ll go?”
    Yes, says Auda. When you’ve gotten what you want, you will go home. When al Awrens has gotten what he wants, he will go home.
    The Clinton Dems gave us nothing — in fact, kicked us in the teeth as someone said above — so we’re leaving. It’s pretty simple, but the liberal classes will manage to find themselves simply _mystified_ about what’s going on. They are so cossetted from the world as it is that everything constantly surprises and confuses them.

  36. Outrage Beyond says:

    It’s clear that the characterizations of Bernie as a “sheepdog” were all correct. He refused to go negative on Hillary; he waffled on the email business and so many other opportunities. He could have damaged her severely and maybe even have won the nomination, if he had the courage required to do so.
    With that said, let’s look into the future and consider another idea: impeachment. Just as the “unfinished business” of the first Iraq war was part of the motivation for George W. Bush’s Iraq War for Israel, House Republicans are surely salivating over the prospect of a “do over” of the Clinton impeachment.
    Should the Borg Queen triumph, can there be any doubt that impeachment talk will immediately burn like a fever amongst the GOP majority in the House? She’s already provided plenty of ammunition with the email scandals and the Clinton Foundation grifting. It seems obvious more awaits. It matters little what reason they hang it on; they will surely try to hang her.
    Likewise, Trump is also likely to face impeachment if he wins. Again, the reason is of little moment. Trump will provide. The GOP elite will relish the opportunity for a “do over” of the primaries. A President Pence is a man they can easily live with and do business with. Success would also send a message to any future upstarts: you might win, but we’ll make sure you lose.

  37. tilde says:

    @kooshy
    Except that Sanders proved he is actually pretty darn electable.
    45% or so of the primary vote, in the face of the DNC + national media leaning on the scales for Hill the entire time. Circumstantial evidence before, now with proof, acknowledged by DWS’s resignation — (and no, Sanders is not an agent of Putin — wtf are they thinking?).
    And I think B raised more money than H, in large part from nickel-and-dime donations. And he beat H in heads-up polling vs their mutual opponents. All this from a cranky old Jew from Brooklyn who described himself as a socialist, when that word was unspeakable in mainstream politics until recently.
    So that’s the main accomplishment, I think. Disproving a central argument for lesser-evil voting: “electability”, a BS line if you ask me, but one that has held up the 2-party-system as it exists in US politics, forever it seems.
    As far as the value of the promises by Clinton… yes, I’m not holding my breath. In the name of staying positive, I am trying to think of it this way – precious few nationally elected politicians will do anything useful without fear of losing their positions. That’s the only feedback the system has against politicians who don’t keep their word, and it is up to voters to make this fear a reality from time to time, to keep the system honest.

  38. ked says:

    Some of Bernie’s campaign staff have launched Brand New Congress to carry forward their progressive-socialist movement in a traditional / pragmatic way. The GOP is unlikely to get stronger as a result of this election cycle, so if they successfully supplant enough of the “niche values” ideological extremists on the far right in House elections in 2 yrs, they may then caucus w/ Dems to take control of the House. From that position, with some House Dems switching over, erosion of the party could yield a flip in control of the House majority coalition. That would probsbly take a 2nd or 3rd two-yr election cycle. If this BNG thing has staying power, savvy & real popular support, while the Dem Party ages-out, we could see a new left-center that’s got a shot at national party status.

  39. Tyler says:

    JohnH,
    Yes, you can have a progressive masquerading as a libertarian or a communist.
    Get out of here you joke.

  40. Tyler says:

    charly,
    This is such an amazingly basic interpretation of economics I almost have to think you’re joking.
    College is so expensive because FedGov backs the ultra majority of college loans, and will approve anyone. Therefore the colleges have no problem charging a gorillion dollars because people will take out loans to get a Masters in Transgender Latina Skateboarding theory.
    The reality is the total opposite of your ridiculous conclusion. Get the government OUT of education and prices will return to normal.

  41. Tyler says:

    steve,
    Show me another country with our demographics.
    Sweden is already buckling under the health care costs from importing a zillion turd worlders. But let’s keep doubling down on what’s not working.

  42. irf520 says:

    But he didn’t have to be humiliated. He could have told Hillary and the rest of the DNC to shove it and walked out with his head held high. The fact they cheated would release him from his pledge in any sensible person’s eyes.

  43. jonst says:

    The young (many) are always “fed up” with “politics as usual”. And, ‘life as usual’, and so on and so on. Often this expresses itself most aggressively in the spring. When the weather is nice.

  44. jonst says:

    The root cause of high prices, besides the obvious complexity of SOME procedures/devices, is the desire of people well placed to make a lot of money. You know a way to change that?

  45. rjj says:

    Brand New Congress!! the makeover to be done after the arsonists have vacated?

  46. Tyler says:

    ked,
    I can hear you hitting the bong from over here.
    Trump is leading in the polls, he defeated 16 candidates and took 650 million dollars of oppo funding on the chin, and he’s about to go full Picard on the Borg Queen. His America First policy is waaaaay more popular than the Democrats combination of fairy dust + unlimited immigration.

  47. ked says:

    Some people don’t process contemplation of what-if scenarios very well, the potential of small eddies in history to become bigger currents. Those people are sometimes trapped in certainty, or have other issues. personal or cognitive. They certainly aren’t much fun to be around.

  48. Matthew says:

    Tyler: The anti-Trump media war is interesting. The more outrageous the claims against Trump, the better his numbers. When Romney lost in 2008 and many conservative were surprised, Andrew Sullivan noted that’s because Romney’s supporters suffered from “epistemic closure,” i.e., extreme confirmation bias.
    Likewise, the anti-Trumpers believe that because they dislike Trump, everyone must dislike Trump. In that light, having an illegal alien lecture Americans at the DNC about the trials and tribulations of being an illegal alien in America is supposedly good politics.
    Now that is epistemic closure too.

  49. ked says:

    lotsa things get re-built on ashes – even the Capitol building, as I recall.

  50. Tyler says:

    Matthew,
    The media is also furious that Trump knows they’re the enemy and treats them accordingly. They’ve done their damndest to try and parce out his two shots to the reporter from yesterday, the “I know you’re going to try and save her” (Clinton) and “I’m sure the media would reward you for releasing the emails” (to Russia).
    Romney was also a liberal from the northeast who had no chance of winning and was determined to lose gracefully to Obama, but that’s another story.

  51. Valissa says:

    Another example of how Sanders voters are NOT being catered to by the Dems (to anyone who believes Sanders voters have gotten or will get anything from the D party… I have a bridge to sell you).
    The Daily 202: Democrats claim patriotism, God and American exceptionalism at convention https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/07/28/daily-202-democrats-claim-patriotism-god-and-american-exceptionalism-at-convention/579957364acce205051bf6a5/
    Thought leaders on the right, whose efforts to stop Trump proved futile, recognized that Democrats were successfully co-opting four decades of core Republican messaging:
    From the top editor at National Review:
    [Rich Lowry] American exceptionalism and greatness, shining city on hill, founding documents, etc–they’re trying to take all our stuff
    The conservative opinion editor of the New York Post:
    [Seth Mandel] Republicans refused to run a Republican this year so there was a vacuum …
    From a seasoned Virginia GOP operative (formerly Bob McDonnell’s communications director):
    [Tucker martin] The president is burying Donald Trump with language Republicans will respond to
    ————-
    So many great examples of pundits and political “professionals” who are clueless about what is happening in this election. They are still playing by the old rules… which don’t seem to mean much any more.
    This election is the most enjoyable election I’ve ever witnessed! Have never laughed so much at news headlines. But I have to be careful about doing that around my liberal friends, as they are not amused.

  52. Peter says:

    Stop guaranteeing government student loans and students won’t be able to afford the ridiculously high prices anymore. The schools will have no choice but to lower their prices to a level where people can afford it again, unless they want to see what their profits look like with no students. It’s really not that complicated, and the previous generation could actually afford to work their way through colleges and didn’t need government loans.

  53. rjj says:

    having jobs and debt obligations probably contributes to the cluelessness.

  54. Tyler says:

    Valissa,
    The same idiot pundits who told us Trump could never be the nominee up to their old tricks again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.