Deep Politics Forum
Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Printable Version

+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: DPF Articles Discussion (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-39.html)
+--- Thread: Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? (/thread-14690.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 10-06-2016

2,400,000 California primary votes remain uncounted and may never be counted - the entire electoral system in the USA is rigged - not news - just more proof, if more proof needs to be presented........ [Clinton's lead is by about 440,000 votes]

55.8%
votes- 1,940,580
Delegates- 338



43.2%
votes- 1,502,043
Delegates- 207
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president
On Friday, June 10[SUP]th[/SUP], California Secretary of StatePadilla announced that over 2,400,000 ballots- mail-in and provisional, had notyet been counted!
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-primary-20160607-htmlstory.html

Preciseturnout figures for this year won't be known for days because mail ballotspostmarked by Tuesday will be counted if they're received in election officesby Friday. Los Angeles County alone estimated it had 570,000 ballots left tocount.
Nearly650,000 Californians registered to vote in the last 45 days before thedeadline, giving the state a record primary election registration of 17.9million.

http://www.kcra.com/news/surge-in-ca-voter-registration-didnt-lead-to-more-voters/39967166
Thenew voters probably got provisional ballots, as some of those went to peoplewho were not yet on the voting rolls. Otherprovisional ballots went to nonpartisan voters who requested Democraticballots. Both of these groups of voterswere mostly Bernie supporters. Theprovisional ballots were set aside, and not included in Tuesday's total.
Alawsuit has been filed to make sure all the provisional ballots are counted.
"Ithas been learned from poll workers that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposedto have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they wouldhave to vote provisional ballots. There were two irregularities leading to theforced use of provisional ballots instead of regular ballots. The first wasthat previously registered voters' names had been removed from the rolls. Thesecond was that someone (in most cases, not the voter) had marked them as voteby mail voters but they had received no ballot in the mail. Oddly, virtuallyall of those not allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots wereBernie Sanders supporters.
Thenext oddity is even more curious. Poll workers in Los Angeles and Orange Countyreport that Bernie won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2to 1 margin, the opposite of the result of the vote count. The contrast betweenthis and the outcome is indicative of vote-flipping. Also the outcome.. outcomedoes not match what anyone who has conducted polling in this state knows: Belowthe election night video is a video about black box voting (Hacking Democracy), The Democratic Party has essentially endorsed this video, showing it atvarious conventions and another video of a computer programmer confessing tocreating a vote-flipping program."

http://yournewswire.com/lawsuit-filed-as-bernie-sanders-wins-california-by-landslide
Itmay be a while before all the California ballots are properly counted, and whenthat happens, it may well turn out that Bernie won. If so, it will be a huge embarrassment toHillary, the Democratic Party, and the press. The disgust with this deceit will be widespread, and Bernie may win theDemocratic nomination for president after all!


Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - R.K. Locke - 10-06-2016

Hillary Clinton most dangerous' presidential candidate - Stephen Lendman

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/06/10/469854/Stephen-Lendman-Clinton-Obama-Democrats


Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 11-06-2016

R.K. Locke Wrote:Hillary Clinton most dangerous' presidential candidate - Stephen Lendman

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/06/10/469854/Stephen-Lendman-Clinton-Obama-Democrats

I find it very sad that so many 'liberals' and women are charmed [for some unknown reasons] by Clinton II - seemingly forgetting both her own track record and that of her husband. Yes, it is nice that a woman finally made it to be a candidate to that position...but one can much better celebrate that by voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party than the venomous war monger and intelligence/big-finance operative that is Hillary. Many Americans really don't have a clue as to their own history - even that of yesterday or today, let alone a few years or decades ago. I actually believe, however, that more people who don't want Trump would like Sanders than Clinton - but the 'vote counting' is done by the Oligarchy and 'Men In The Back Room', not in the ballot box - to make sure it is 'business and war/dirty tricks as usual'. The MSM, of course, played its essential role in this part of our 'Dumbocracy'.

What Sanders does now will be pivotal to the future of the USA. He will take his 'fight' to the Democratic Convention where I'm afraid he will just loose by a tad [the fix is already in]...then what? I think and hope he runs on the Green Party ticket, as there is not time enough to get on the ballot in most states under another 'third party' line. Would Americans vote for a Green Party in sufficient numbers? Would the 'System' pull out all of the dirty-trick stops? Well, only one way to find out.......and see if we can save America. While I think Stein the better person and candidate than Sanders, Sanders is still way way way better than Clinton, not to mention Trump. It is time to move forward and time to break the stranglehold of the 'two' party system......IMHO.


Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - David Guyatt - 11-06-2016

It's an awful thought to imagine that woman in the Oval Office doing as she's told and signing off on more war. Awful.


Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 11-06-2016

David Guyatt Wrote:It's an awful thought to imagine that woman in the Oval Office doing as she's told and signing off on more war. Awful.

The 'Thatcher Syndrome'....


Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - David Guyatt - 12-06-2016

Peter Lemkin Wrote:
David Guyatt Wrote:It's an awful thought to imagine that woman in the Oval Office doing as she's told and signing off on more war. Awful.

The 'Thatcher Syndrome'....


Even the thought hurts...


Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 17-06-2016

It seems Sanders has given up without a fight even at the DNC. Very very disappointing!....::doh::


Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - David Guyatt - 17-06-2016

Peter Lemkin Wrote:It seems Sanders has given up without a fight even at the DNC. Very very disappointing!....::doh::

The following might explain why. Elections are a fixed roulette wheel:

Quote:

Who's protecting Hillary Clinton?



[Image: arton192318-973be.jpg]
While the Press celebrates the Democratic Party victory of the first female billionaire in history, a somber legal battle is going on in the shadows.The State Department report on Hillary Clinton's emails, and the different legal proceedings which followed, establish that she is guilty of :
[Image: puce-cebf5.gif] Obstruction of Justice by Mrs. Clinton and her advisors (Section 1410) ;
[Image: puce-cebf5.gif] Obstruction of Criminal Enquiries (Section 1511) ;
[Image: puce-cebf5.gif] Obstruction of the application of local and Federal laws (Section 1411) ;
[Image: puce-cebf5.gif] Federal crime of negligence with classified information and documents (Section 1924) ;
[Image: puce-cebf5.gif] Detention in her computer, at home and on a non-secure server, of 1,200 secret documents (Section 1924)
[Image: puce-cebf5.gif] Felony Mrs. Clinton declared under oath to a Federal judge that she had given all her emails to the State Department. However, the Inspector General of the State Department declared this week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;
[Image: puce-cebf5.gif] Moreover, she declared under oath that the State Department had authorised her to use her personal computer to work at home. The Inspector General of the State Department declared this week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;
[Image: puce-cebf5.gif] Mrs. Clinton did not alert the authorities, nor even her own Department, that her personal computer had been hacked several times. Yet she had asked her system administrator to try to protect her computer.
[Image: puce-cebf5.gif] Misappropriation and Concealment. The Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton were corrupted so that the State Department would close their eyes to various practices (Rico Law and Section 1503).In principle, and since the facts and their gravity have been established by the FBI, the State Departement, and a Federal judge, Hillary Clinton should have been arrested this week.Bernie Sanders, the other candidate for the Democratic nomination, was counting on Mrs. Clinton's arrest before their party's convention. He therefore decided to stay in the running, although he does not have enough delegates. But he was summoned to the White House, and informed that President Barack Obama would prevent his administration from applying the law. Obama then followed through by publicly announcing his support for the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton.



Voltaire


Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 17-06-2016

Peter Lemkin Wrote:It seems Sanders has given up without a fight even at the DNC. Very very disappointing!....::doh::

I [slightly] overstated Sander's position - due to the skewed reporting by the BBC [famous for their skewed reporting done in impeccable English style]. When I actually heard his speech to his followers, he asked them to carry on the fight to change the Democratic Party, but that he would then [implying he would not become their candidate] support whoever was [gee, wonder who was unnamed] in the necessary fight to defeat Trump. Still, a disappointing speech, but he has not [totally] given up his fight just yet...only partly, IMHO.

Quote: We turn now to the presidential race. On Thursday night, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders addressed supporters in a live webcast, vowing the continuation of what he called his political revolution. The speech came two days after Hillary Clinton won the last primary in Washington, D.C. While Clinton has claimed victory in the Democratic race, Sanders announced he would stay in until next month's convention. He did not endorse the former secretary of state, but vowed to work with her to defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: The major political task that together we face in the next five months is to make certain that Donald Trump is defeated, and defeated badly. And I personally intend to begin my role in that process in a very short period of time. But defeating Donald Trump cannot be our only goal. We must continue our grassroots effort to create the America that we know we can become. And we must take that energy into the Democratic National Convention on July 25th in Philadelphia, where we will have more than 1,900 delegates.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Bernie Sanders went on to say he plans to push the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party to adopt a more progressive agenda.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I look forward in the coming weeks to continue discussion between the two campaigns to make certain that your voices are heard and that the Democratic Party passes the most progressive platform in its history, and that Democrats actually fight for that agenda. I also look forward to working with Secretary Clinton to transform the Democratic Party, so that it becomes a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors, a party that has the guts to take on Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry and the other powerful special interests that dominate so much of our political and economic life.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the Sanders campaign, we're joined by RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, the nation's largest organization of nurses, the first national union to back Senator Sanders last year for president. Sanders recently attempted to place DeMoro on the Democratic platform committee, but according to Sanders, the move was blocked by the Democratic National Committee. This weekend, National Nurses United is helping organize a major conference in Chicago called the People's Summit. RoseAnn DeMoro will be speaking there, but is speaking here first.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, RoseAnn. Why don't you start off by responding to Bernie Sanders' announcement last night that he's staying in the race into the convention and what he wants to see happen, and then what you want to see happen?
ROSEANN DEMORO: Thank you. It was aI listened to the announcement in a room with 1,400 registered nurses, and I have to say it was music to everyone's ears. Prior to Bernie speaking on the teleprompter, we played his commercial, "America." And it justit just so much symbolizedthat beautiful commercial that he did with the Simon and Garfunkel song. And everyone wasjust fell silent. And then, when Bernie spoke, there was a massive relief in the room that there was an advocate that would be fighting for them, for the nurses, for their patients. It was justit was thethe passion was palpable. And it was beautiful. And I think that's probably how it resonated with people across the country. What we know about Bernie is that he will be there. He's always been there as a fighter in the Senate, but that he will continue to be there for us. But most importantly, his message was, we have to be there, we have to build a movement, we have to fight.
Now, followingI just have to say this, because it was just so sweet. Following his presentation, the nurses, because they always dancewe ascribe to Emma Goldman's philosophy: If we can't dance, we don't want to have the revolution. So they wereyou know, started up karaoke. They chose their songs. The Veterans Administration nurses who were in the room chose "My Guy," and they got up and they sang it for Bernie. And it was justI mean, it made everybody tear up. And then, the next group did a song for Bernie called "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey. So that, actually, I think, is emblematic of where things stand.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: RoseAnn DeMoro, I wanted to ask you about this issue of theDNC nixing you for being on the platform committee, and also the reasons that they felt that they didn't want labor union representation, the ostensible reasons, what that signifies?
ROSEANN DEMORO: You know, Juan, I think, exactly, ostensible. Well, the fact that the DNC could use not having a labor leader on the platform committee as a reason says everything that you need to know about how far the Democratic Party has drifted from the working people of America. But actually, the real reason is that I amI fight. You know, we are one of the only organizations, I'd say, that has systematically fought in its history for a single-payer healthcare system, because the nurses see the human suffering of people, and it's not negotiable. And that's the thing. You know, we've seen with the neoliberal agenda and the austerity programs, we're all supposed to get on board and just accept cuts. Well, when it comes to health, the nurses see the consequences of that. They see the fallout. They see people who can't afford their prescriptions. They see people who get to the hospital so late, and their lives are compromised because of it. And so, when it comes to single payer, we don't compromise. We are going to fight. Every other country can achieve a single-payer system. People shouldn't suffer. And that's basically the bottom line and one of the reasons that the nurses are so heartfelt in the Sanders campaign and remain so.
And so, excluding me fromI was not surprised whatsoever. I mean, it was ironic, because, you know, they chose Cornel West, who we like very, very much, but they excluded me. And what that says isto me, is the role of finance in healthcare and what they don't want to see in the platform. There isn't a commitment to taking care of America's people by the Democratic Party any longer. A single-payer healthcare system is more cost-effective, it's the most efficient, and it guarantees access for everyone. And that's off the agenda. That's what that says.



Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 23-06-2016

Yet Another Failed Attempt to Discredit Bernie Sanders, Courtesy of the New York Times

by
Jake Johnson






(Photo: Shelly Prevost/flickr/cc)



Democratic Party liberals have made quite a show of their desire for Bernie Sanders to leave the presidential race so that, the story goes, Hillary Clinton can focus her energy solely on the looming threat of Donald Trump.
But, judging by their behavior, and by the writings of pundits and analysts, it is these very same liberals who cannot resist a daily whack at the Sanders campaign and at Bernie Sanders, himself. Liberals who frequently articulate both their horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency and the role we all share in preventing him from reaching the White House still, somehow, muster the energy to take pot-shots at the democratic socialist they so breezily dismissed as a non-entity just a few months ago.
Needless to say, legitimate criticism of the Sanders campaign of its ideas and of how the campaign was run is both fair and necessary. But the sneering that can be witnessed in some of the nation's most lauded journalistic outfits is a far-cry from legitimate.
Take, for instance, the examples compiled by Adam Johnson: Back in March, in a span of sixteen hours, the Washington Post ran sixteen stories lambasting the Sanders campaign from a variety of angles, none of which were charitable. The Post's editorial board has gone further, denouncing Sanders for running a "fiction-filled campaign," one that is merely telling progressives "everything they want to hear."
In a short period, major outlets underwent a sharp tactical turnaround from granting Sanders little attention at all, having dismissed his candidacy as symbolic and thus unworthy of mention, to launching baseless tirades at a furious pace.
And tirades, I think, is an accurate portrayal, as many of the critiques put forward by the anti-Sanders crowd are not critiques at all. Rather, they are polemics filled with musings on the motives of Sanders and his supporters musings that are rarely grounded in data.
Sanders backers have been classified on the basis of this flimsy framework in a variety of ways: Racist, sexist, conservative, Trump sympathizers.
Then, of course, there is the famous "Bernie bro" narrative, a tall tale that purports to demonstrate that Sanders supporters are motivated not by left politics or by a desire to improve the material conditions of Americans, but by their incessant drive, as young, white males, to regain their status in a rapidly diversifying society.
When one takes little more than a cursory glance at these claims, however, they fall apart.
Sadly, otherwise insightful commentators have latched onto these lines of attack: Paul Krugman, for instance, gleefully seized upon a faulty interpretation of survey data, exclaiming on one occasion that he had found "the truth about the Sanders movement," and on another that Sanders, himself, is becoming a "Bernie bro."
In terms of their factual weight, these smears are easily brushed aside; but, because they have been pushed by influential voices, these narratives, fraudulent as they are, have shown tremendous staying power.
But perhaps more pernicious than the strange, speculative musings and left-right combos coming from the anti-Sanders crowd are the flippant dismissals of Sanders's platform, one that contains elements that liberals are usually happy to embrace: Like, say, single-payer healthcare, (much) higher taxes on the wealthy, and an overhaul of the nation's disastrous campaign finance system.
Some commentators, in the face of a politician who seems genuinely determined to move forward with the agenda he has articulated throughout his campaign, have twisted themselves into knots to justify their emphatic rejection of the most progressive candidacy in recent history.
For instance: Last week, political scientist Mark Schmitt, writing for the New York Times, offered up a critique of the Sanders campaign that, upon examination, is ultimately as baseless as the poisonous, speculative takes that have dominated major newspapers and media outlets over the last several months.
Schmitt's beef with Sanders is that the Vermont senator is "still running the Windows 95 version of progressive politics," and that his proposals are "consistently out of step with the ideas that have been emerging from progressive think tanks like Demos or the Center for American Progress or championed by his own congressional colleagues."
First, it is fascinating that Sanders, despite, in Schmitt's view, "running the Windows 95 version of progressive politics," has been able to bring overwhelming numbers of young people into the political process, winning their support by large margins over his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps Schmitt, not Sanders, is the prisoner of an outmoded ideological framework, one guided by the missives of progressive think tanks rather than the needs of the population.
Further, as Matt Bruenig thoroughly demonstrates, Schmitt's objections to the Sanders platform don't hold weight from an individual policy perspective, either.
The fundamental problem is laid bare in Schmitt's criticism of Sanders's support for single-payer healthcare.
"Schmitt paints Sanders's interest in single-payer healthcare as quaint and out of touch with modern progressivism," Bruenig notes. "But this is only true if you equate modern progressivism with the foundations that set the priorities of liberal think tanks. The largest union of nurses in the country, National Nurses United, aggressively promotes single-payer health care, and the AFL-CIO unanimously endorsed single-payer a few years ago."
The problem, Bruenig concludes, is not that Sanders is "behind the times"; rather, it is that Sanders is "in line with different modern progressive constituencies than Schmitt is."
This gets at the more subtle point that underlies Schmitt's disagreement with Sanders, one that Schmitt, himself, does a fantastic job uncovering: Self-styled progressives are willing to go to great lengths to defend status quo liberalism represented by think tanks like the Center for American Progress from its critics on the left, often resorting to misrepresentations, baseless character assaults, and outright falsehoods in the process.
Democratic Party loyalists cannot bring themselves to admit that the so-called pragmatic liberalism (otherwise known as centrism) of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been inadequate and ineffective in its attempts to address growing inequality and corporate plunder.
In fact, this form of liberalism one that has, over the past several decades, moved ever closer to the open arms of business has often made these problems worse.
Today, as a result, the Democratic Party is overrun with what Doug Henwood calls "doom and gloom," a philosophical attitude that has led Democrats to abandon ambitious policy goals along with their blue-collar base in favor of a meager, unappetizing, and often actively harmful platform.
"Hillary Democrats," Henwood contends, "are running against hope."
A great strength of the Sanders campaign has been its ability to expose this thinly-veiled rift between the left and the Democratic Party, thus differentiating between "doom and gloom" liberalism and the revolutionary goals of the Vermont senator and the progressive movements that have coalesced around his successes.
"Unlike fortress liberals or professional elites," writes Matt Karp, "Sanders and his young backers recognize that the vital element in any progressive struggle is the ability to generate energy from the bottom up."
Far from running on an outdated version of progressivism, the Sanders campaign has broken through the barriers set by the Democratic Party, raised the expectations and ambitions of voters, and motivated them to reverse "the atrophy of political imagination" that has, over the past several decades, infected the Democratic agenda.
In doing so, Sanders has thrown into sharp relief the ideological bankruptcy of 21st century liberalism and has articulated an inspiring alternative.
Try as they might, analysts like Mark Schmitt cannot reestablish the legitimacy of an ideological framework that has long overstayed its welcome.