Bernie Sanders Says He's Willing To Campaign For Montana Populist Rob Quist

[Donkees]

04/08/2017

[font color="#404040" font size="4"]Washington Democrats have been ignoring the special election in Montana, but Sanders may make it a stop on his national tour with the DNC’s Tom Perez.[/font]


Excerpt:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has offered to travel to Montana to help boost insurgent House candidate Rob Quist, who is running in a surprisingly competitive special election for the at-large seat previously held by Ryan Zinke, who is now secretary of the department of interior. The stop would be part of a national tour Sanders is doing with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez after Easter, the Vermont senator told The Huffington Post in an interview.

The duo plan to hit roughly nine states, but the details are still being worked out.

Sanders, whose organization, Our Revolution, has endorsed Quist, said that the House hopeful is the kind of candidate Democrats should be putting up in traditionally Republican areas.

“My impression is Quist’s a very strong candidate who stands up for working people, understands that we need a government that represents all of us and not the one percent. So if we can be of help to Quist, happy to do that as well.”

Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, will already be in the neighborhood, so to speak, with plans to stop in Omaha, Nebraska. “There is going to be a mayor’s race and my understanding is that the Democratic candidate there has a chance to win if voter turnout is high, and we’ll do what we can to create high voter turnout,” Sanders said. “In Montana, if it works out, we’d love to go to Montana and help Quist in his race.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-says-hes-willing-to-campaign-for-rob-quist-in-montana_us_58e92c5de4b058f0a02fa67e

[democrank]

1. Compete anywhere and everywhere

Stand up, RESIST!

[Tikki]

2. We may be seeing a pattern here...Ossoff in Georgia, O'Rourke in Texas and here in Montana, Quist..

Young, determined Democratic candidates...there are more that will be showing up.

Young and Determined...that should be the Face of the Democratic Party going into 2018 and beyond.

OK Rob is bit older than I thought...but he is a Correct Leader for Montana.
Tikki

[calimary]

4. If he wants to help anybody - the KANSAS candidate needs it!

http://www.votejamesthompson.com

James Thompson is running to fill the Mike Pompeo seat. And he's been sorely overlooked. NEEDS HELP!!!! Like yesterday!!!

His race is next TUESDAY.

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/james-thompson-for-congress?refcode=JTFKWebsiteDonateRedirect

[Donkees]

11. Discussed it here recently ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028909041

[Alice11111]

79. Why is Dem party not focusing there?

Maddow did a special weeks ago that the DNC was ignoring the Georgia race. That seemed to help.
I don't get it, but I'm sure they are on top of it.

[Delmette2.0]

6. I love that Bernie is coming back to Montana.

I saw him in Billings during the primaries.

Every seat in the House counts and every vote counts!

[LovingA2andMI]

3. Leave No Possible Seat Unturned....

Even In Montana. Thank You, Bernie! #50StateStrategy

[Delmette2.0]

7. Bernie won the Democratic Primary in Montana.

I'm delighted to see him return.

[ehrnst]

5. His pick for VA governor has a bad record on choice.

Which, if history bears out, that endorsement isn't any good for that candidate.

What’s uniquely concerning about Sanders’ quest to send a national signal in Virginia with Perriello is Sanders’ ongoing drive to own what the progressive brand within the Democratic Party should look like, coupled with his willingness to make abortion rights an optional part of that brand. That’s dangerous at a critical moment for abortion rights. As I’ve covered for Rewire, there is nothing progressive or winning about a so-called big tent on abortion. Perriello, whom FiveThirtyEight recently declared “a political opportunist in the age of Trump,” seems to keep moving his sleeping bag from tent to tent on the abortion issue. It’s not clear where he stands on Sanders’ willingness to accommodate anti-abortion actions and actors in the Democratic Party, all while carrying a mantle of economic justice that can’t be complete without access to ready, funded access to reproductive health care.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/04/07/no-thanks-bernie-virginia-abortion-rights-advocates-know-better/

[JCanete]

8. okay, his vote was unacceptable, his excuse for it is lame. But he has come around on this issue

and maybe i'm just finding the wrong sources, but that seems to be the only vote people are talking about in regards to his record on pro-choice. People do evolve, or make expedient choices that I'm particularly not happy with. He is on record as saying he is pro-choice, that he regrets his vote, and that he does not believe, as a catholic, that abortion is murder.

His Democratic competitor, Northam, on the other hand, voted for W twice, something I'm willing to accept he also evolved on. He suggests that at the time he wasn't politically informed. That's reasonable, and he wasn't in the Senate at the time to advocate for a lame amendment, but the Republicans under W did a whole slew of shitty things.

When it comes down to it, I don't accept Pariello's earlier votes as anything but pandering(although one could flip that and say he's pandering now) but importantly, he is on the right side of that issue and most others now, assuming he doesn't flip-flop on them. It doesn't look like he has a robust history of that flip-flopping though, unless the journalists making a point of exposing his record are too lazy to go beyond that one vote and his gun advocacy. Having an A rating, if that is correct, from the NRA is troubling. How does a Democrat get an A rating? (I"ll look it up but have to head out to work) Hell, Bernie had a D- and people wanted to show his softness on gun issues.

But while gun violence is a huge concern for me, and responsible legislation a must, it isn't the crux of the problem. It is all kinds of other social ills that we are ignoring that gives people "permission" or lack of empathy, or the right kind of anxiety, to take other people's lives, so those things are higher on my list, even as a solution to gun violence. So if one of the two is going to be far more aggressive about money in politics than the other(because its from on high where this violence is bred), I would be inclined to go with that one, assuming I thought that person comparably trustworthy to the other candidate.

[ehrnst]

10. I don't recall Hillary getting that kind of understanding from Bernie

Or his supporters.

[JCanete]

13. Clinton has a far more complicated history that we are all aware of, not to mention a different way

of parsing her positions on certain issues, and a very moderate--you may call it pragmatic--approach to speaking about and dealing with Wall Street and big money. Besides, it was a primary and Sanders was representing an alternative. Most of us across the board are pragmatic. Sanders supporters voted for Clinton, Clinton supporters here made it clear they would vote for Sanders had it come down to it. In this coming race, given that we have two democratic options, I'll hope the one promoting the issues I most care about wins, assuming I don't think that person is going to hurt that message with scandal, or betray us.

But I also won't accept future votes from him that go back on his promise to be a pro-choice advocate.That would reduce his mea culpa down to lip-service, and it would absolutely be a betrayal.

[ehrnst]

16. Parsing/evolving - If she did it, it was bad.

And yes, I think that her history is no worse than an average politician, but she was vilified more than any average politician, and was more accomplished, particularly in humanitarian issues than most politicians.

When male politicians get "pragmatic" we don't see it the same way. I'm glad that someone is holding some male career politicians to some of the standards that they hold other up to, despite their own "complicated history" that doesn't get discussed.

When women, gays and gun safety get thrown under the bus, that is a betrayal - and I'm thinking someone's got a messiah complex.

That kind of thinking has NO place in the Democratic party.

[JCanete]

19. When women or gays get thrown under the bus I agree, where that is happening.

I'm not sure who you are saying is doing this. Sanders is supporting a pro-choice candidate who has a very bad vote on the issue on his record, and is at least declaring his remorse for it. As of today he is on the right side of this issue. Not perhaps on guns, and I don't know the rest of his record, but guns are lower on my list for reasons I stated.

I appreciate Clinton's storied career and her capacity to survive and do good work in an incredibly hostile environment, in which she has had a huge target on her back for the last 15 or so years, but as of the primaries, as far as I was concerned, she was not fully on the right side of some issues. That didn't stop me from voting for her.

If this guy were pro-life, admittedly I would be torn. We did just vote for a man on Clinton's presidential ticket who has previously proclaimed himself pro-life, so it sounds like depending on the metric we want to use, we all threw women's issues under the bus. The reason I want to target money first and foremost though, is because money in politics and in media is the thing that keeps selling stupid to the American people. If we want to stop promoting anti-woman and homosexual agendas, we need to get aggressive with the institutions that are okay with funding divisive rhetoric and draconian politicians.

Gun issues are more complicated to me, as much as I could give a rats ass about the 2nd amendment. I don't want pandering legislation that looks silly, versus shit that is effective and matters, and sometimes Democrats propose some arbitrary things, or target the wrong people. I do need to see what this man has supported to get an A rating(if I read that right, think it was claimed by his opponent) from the NRA, because I despise the NRA. I suspect they wouldn't give that to a Democrat lightly...that hardly fuels their "you need to run and buy an arsenal and a bunker before the libruls come and take your rights away" sales pitch.

[ehrnst]

28. Sanders has been saying Democrats are "hung up on abortion and gay marriage" for years

He called Hillary a "neocon" based on her timeline of evolving on issues - and they were farther in the past than this candidates' votes.

I'm not saying he's "pro-life" but Bernie called out Corey Booker on even one vote on an amendment that was symbolic on drug prices, but voting yes on the Stupak amendment is 'forgiven' - I see a pattern.

Bernie has stated that he's ready to "move right" on "social issues" (and apparently women's reproductive health is a "social issue" and not a medical and public health issue) in order to get that rust belt vote.

That's what I'm angry about.


http://www.rawstory.com/2013/10/bernie-sanders-tells-ed-schultz-southern-democrats-are-tired-of-being-abandoned-by-the-party/

[JHan]

51. yup, and that sums it up right there.

the disgusting double standards. And it's good to point it out whenever we see it.

[ehrnst]

57. We call it pointing out double standards. Others call it "smearing." (nt)

[JCanete]

74. sure, double standards are a problem, but I hardly see it here. People want to be like

"Oh I see, you'll endorse Pariello after his vote but not Clinton for things in the past, except of course when you endorsed her...whoops."

[ehrnst]

75. Well, "Endorsing her" is a strong phrase

for what happened after the primary...

[JCanete]

76. He campaigned for her, and even with her. Do you think he will do even more for Pariello?

[ehrnst]

78. If recent CA elections are any indication

Sanders' endorsement might not be what Pariello would necessarily want.

However, I haven't heard anyone recite their primary delegate count was before speaking on this candidates' "behalf," so this is a comparatively sincere endorsement.

[JCanete]

80. Okay, I don't know what to do with that. This is in the realm of personal impressions clearly, and

less to do with clearly delineated double-standards. I see, in a race he was personally in, he went to the convention, had his votes tallied, and then moved to have them all tallied for clinton....versus, he's not personally in this other race at all, and he endorses this person without waiting for a personal tally to be announced, because after all, he's not in this race.

[ehrnst]

82. He's not in this race, so yes, he might not have any

reservations about speaking well of Tom, or the urge to damn with faint praise.

[JCanete]

83. you were making a double-standard claim. Is the double standard that he didn't run against Pariello

first?

[ehrnst]

81. Will he do more than say that Perriello is "preferable to Gillespie"

Last edited Wed Apr 12, 2017, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)

and that Virginia will do horribly if Gillespie is elected, and that voters should not vote for Gillespie, and how Perriello will carry on the work of McAuliffe better than Gillespie?

Remains to be seen, but I'll bet he does.

Elizabeth Warren - now there's someone who could endorse her candidate. No reservations.

[JCanete]

73. that was Booker's recent vote and Sander's own proposal. And since then it sounds like everybody is

at least publicly on the same page on this issue. Has Sanders called out Booker on this in recent days?

And where has Sanders indicated that he is willing to move right on social issues? I have yet to see that in my own exposure, and it would be news to me. I'd like to see what in his own words, adds up to that signaling. I see in the post he's saying these voters are getting hung up on these issues. I don't think he was saying(but you have your interpretation), that we should abandon those issues. He's saying we need to break down their resistance with topics that actually resonate with them first and foremost. I think we can do all these things. It isn't either or and can't be, but if we don't have an aggressive stance on big money, and clear promises on what we WILL do to make their lives better in the immediate and long-term future( not vague promises about how we will work with those big money guys to not go so hard on the rest of us), they aren't going to be able to hear us. We aren't disrupting their entrenched understanding. They think we're the ones working for the money. We need to starkly contrast the GOP on this issue, not just in legislation but on the rhetoric. We can't be the party of "we'll work together!", when that means we'll work with the rich and get them to throw a bone.

Sanders decries Clinton helping to get us into a war. Over 100,000 Iraqis died in that war. It cost us a shit ton of money to destabilize the middle east-a gift that keeps on giving. It took her a long ass time to come around on that vote. Alternatively she is at odds with a very hawkish approach to Wall Street and banks, and big money in general. There are plenty of things that have not just to do with Clinton's past record that they were debating over. And again, they were in a primary together identifying those differences between them.

Pariello and his democratic rival are our choices in this race. Clinton was our choice in the GE, and I'm pretty sure I remember Sanders backing her AND endorsing her AND campaigning for her, so I guess he got over those supposed double standards. We are talking about an endorsement here right?

[ehrnst]

77. Our recollections on what happened after the primary diverge somewhat

Especially comparing the two "endorsements."

[Skittles]

96. whatever you do, do not call him an opportunist

or your comment will be yanked

[PatsFan87]

14. His opponent Ralph Northam voted for George Bush not once but twice.

So there isn't any "perfect" candidate in this race. I like that Perriello is against the two proposed fracked gas pipelines and I like that he's proposing two years of free community college. I also like that he had the gonads to take a hard vote on the ACA when he was in Congress. I think Bernie endorsed the right guy.

[ehrnst]

17. I guess "perfect" is all about who approves of the "imperfections"

Apparently throwing women, gays and gun safety under the bus are now "approved" imperfections.

[PatsFan87]

20. So you think voting for Bush twice is pro-women, pro-gay, pro-gun safety?

[ehrnst]

23. Straw man. I'm talking about double standards

on perfection.

Even a single vote against an admitted symbolic amendment on drug pricing that Bernie has deemed necessary is enough to get Corey Booker castigated as being "a corporate shill."

If Bernie deems they are worthy, then anything seems to be forgiven, and they are deemed to have "evolved" rather than be held to their votes.

This isn't about Northam per se: it's about Bernie believing He is the one who decides what is and is not forgivable, or tolerable. When he says "What Booker and John Lewis get RIGHT is....." instead of "I agree with them on these issues..."

Bernie doesn't apply these exacting standards to himself because he believes that anything he supports at any given time is the only correct way to see things.

The results of his endorsements - his actual endorsements - aren't very good, looking at November and the recent California special elections. So this may be a moot point.

[Kentonio]

25. Ironic accusing others of strawmen

You're the only one talking about perfection here. Most of us recognize that there's no such thing in politics (or anywhere else for that matter). If you refuse to support a candidate for not having a perfect voting record then either they don't have a very long record or else you probably won't end up supporting anyone.

[ehrnst]

26. Again, you ignore that I said this isn't about Northam

It's about Bernie not applying his exacting litmus test to himself, and to select men.

But any and all others (and I am not talking about Northam) are "neocons" when they have ever strayed from the "true progressive" manifesto that has recently come into being.

Is that clearer?

[Kentonio]

27. Clear but not in the slightest bit true.

You're describing a Bernie through the warped lens of a primary narrative filter, not the actual man who has spent his career working with people all across the political spectrum to achieve pragmatic results.

[ehrnst]

29. No, I'm describing a Bernie that has stated these things in interviews

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/sanders-to-trump-listen-to-scientists-climate-change-is-real-909073475617

https://rewire.news/article/2017/04/07/no-thanks-bernie-virginia-abortion-rights-advocates-know-better/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/11/bernie-sanders-signals-flexibility-on-gun-control/

http://www.rawstory.com/2013/10/bernie-sanders-tells-ed-schultz-southern-democrats-are-tired-of-being-abandoned-by-the-party/

However, lately Bernie's endorsements haven't been enough to get those candidates elected, as we saw in November and recent special elections in CA.

[Kentonio]

30. I opened the first link and it was a 15 minute video

If you want to call him out on something he's said, can you at least quite the part you have a problem with please.

[ehrnst]

32. Start at 9:00

Could Democrats, Scarborough asked Sanders, "be open to candidates that may not be rigidly pro-choice, may not be rigidly pro-gun control?" Sanders said yes.

As for his intolerence for dissent from even a single amendment he championed....

http://www.vocativ.com/392631/sanders-canada-amendment-booker/

[Kentonio]

33. So that's the opposite of what you said then, no?

If he's open to working outside rigid parameters then where does the 'perfect' come in? I'm confused by what argument you're making here.

[ehrnst]

34. No - he's not willing to work outside of HIS particular parameters.

When HE decides something is worth discarding in the name of "pragmatism" then it is permitted, and to be encouraged.

But if you depart from HIS pronouncement, then you are shunned.

Is that clearer?

He's the one determining what is and is not "acceptable" imperfection.


This is not a new thing:

http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-permalink-12189.html

[Kentonio]

36. That's a really strange article.

The stuff about Bernie having rubbish social skills is nothing new, and is probably spot on, but the conclusion they draw from that is that Sanders wouldn't have been willing or able to work across the aisle. The trouble there being that he has a long history in Vermont of doing exactly that, and indeed travels the country talking to townhalls in places that are in stark contrast to his own progressive views.

So yeah.

[ehrnst]

37. I think that the lack of endorsements from peers says an awful lot about political skill. (nt)

[Kentonio]

40. As for endorsements..

I can absolutely understand why politicians wouldn't necessarily chose to work with him. In many ways those are EXACTLY the reasons why I support him.

[ehrnst]

41. Because if you're hiring someone for a job, and none of their co-workers will give them a

recommendation, you totally know that's because they were better than all the rest....

[Kentonio]

44. No, simply that Washington tends to be quite a close knit club

And frankly I don't agree with or support a lot of the things they do. Glancing at approval numbers for congress, neither do many other people. I don't particularly want more people there who just drop smoothly into the normal way of things and forget the reasons why they were sent there in the first place.

Obviously as the tea party showed, this can cause chaos but I think the principle is fairly sound if the people being sent are progressives and not right wing nut jobs.

[ehrnst]

46. Yes, the Trump voters felt the same way.

Efficacy is a bad thing when it comes to politics. You can't be an outsider if you are good at it.

Right?

[Kentonio]

48. I'm still waiting to see the insiders manage it, let alone the outsiders.

[ehrnst]

55. An 'outsider' like a 25+ year career politician? (nt)

[ehrnst]

38. Actually, Vermont is a rural very white, and now very lefty, and still small population.

Most old conservative Vermonters left for New Hampshire.

Vermont is the one constituency that will keep voting him into office.

https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/new-vermont-is-liberal-but-old-vermont-is-still-there/



http://www.pjcvt.org/what-we-do/anti-racism-in-vermont/how-liberal-is-vermont/comment-page-1/

[Kentonio]

39. Burlington wasn't 'very lefty' when it started electing him.

He also polls very well there with Republicans.

[ehrnst]

42. A tiny rural white population would of course be supportive of Bernie. (nt)

[Kentonio]

45. You should really read up on his early mayoral campaigns.

The idea that a population like that would 'of course' support someone like Bernie is actually really funny.

[ehrnst]

47. That's going back a few years. Before he became a long-time career politician even. (nt)

[Kentonio]

50. True. It took the time to see it working in practice to change peoples minds.

[ehrnst]

52. So much so that even his fellow Senator and Governor of Vermont

didn't see it even in 2016, apparently...

[ehrnst]

53. True, he did lose the governors race to a woman

Which I think affected him profoundly.

[Kentonio]

54. Frankly if you're going to throw smears at him, then I have no interest in continuing to talk.

[ehrnst]

56. Pointing out some of the holes in your description and stating some facts about his career

= smears?

Not surprising. Dissent or discussion concerning him isn't something that's exactly encouraged, is it? Binary mindsets don't do well when grey areas are pointed out.

The gadfly is most effective simply biting and calling attention to itself and the ideas it has.

It doesn't function well becoming the thing it bites - especially if it gets testy about being bitten.

[Kentonio]

58. No, you went from having a decent conversation to throwing a cheap smear.

If you noticed, I had no problem earlier when you said about how humorless and socially difficult he can be. That's part of who he is, he's not perfect and anyone who thinks he is is simply deluding themselves.

Talking about him losing to a woman though and implying that it 'had an effect on him' is a smear. You're basically calling a guy who has always supported women's rights a sexist, and if you're playing in the mud then I'll leave you to your games.

[ehrnst]

59. That's a lot of projection there.

One could even call it a smear...

Especially considering some of your posts on other candidates, asking if supporters felt "sleazy." Talk about wallowing in mud.

You may want to do some introspection.

[Kentonio]

60. Ah, so you're actually just looking to refight the primary.

Ok, I'm definitely out then, as that's both unproductive and against the rules here.

[ehrnst]

61. No. I'm simply pointing out where you yourself have done what you accuse me of

And I don't recall your hesitance to discuss the nefariousness of endorsements.

You have wallowed in the mud here for a long time when it comes to other candidates, so you needn't be clutching your pearls and crying foul when someone points out some facts about Bernie. Especially a citizen.

Perhaps venting your frustrations over at JPR, Kentonio, will bring you more satisfaction, since the limits of mud wallowing here have prohibited you from continuing here.

[Kentonio]

62. Ah I see.

Glad you've decided to open up and admit this 'conversation' was actually nothing more than a veiled attempt to attack another DU member.

Incidentally you should probably try actually reading past threads before you try and use them as cheap ammunition. The thread you keep referring to was about a very clear and proven chain of events which absolutely no-one has successfully disputed.

But it was also back during a primary. A primary that ended quite a long time ago now, yet which (as you've proven here) some of you find impossible to get over.

The enemy is on the other side of the political divide, how about we focus on them instead of those within our own camp?

[ehrnst]

63. Oh dear.

I see that you so truly absolutely totally want to focus on "unity."

And you are so over the primary, you won't even talk about "why they endorsed her."

There is nothing whatsoever defensive in those hackles, just the hackles of someone who would never, ever engage in any mud slinging, name calling or spreading misinformation in the name of "focusing on those within our own camp."

Those pearls you keep clutching are genuine, too, I suppose, along with the gloves that you remove when it comes to any dissent from the "true progressive" manifesto.

Honey, you are not half the sphinx or the enigma you seem to think you are.

This ain't my first rodeo, and there are a whole lot more like me here.

As I said, there are other venues that will greet you with the cheers and applause you seek.

[Kentonio]

64. You seem quite obsessed with continuing these pointless attacks

Not to mention trying to tell another member that they should leave the site. Have you purchased DU from Skinner now?

Sorry, we have bigger things to think about right now than petty squabbling about past primaries. Perhaps you should read the news more, there is a real enemy out there to oppose. If you just want to hold circular firing squads, then you'll have to find someone else to play along.

[ehrnst]

65. Yet you keep returning.

I'm flattered you care so much, even if it is through loathing.

Did you ever stop and wonder why you had come to 'loathe' a decent, hardworking progressive?

See you soon.

[Kentonio]

66. Why did you put 'loathe' in quotes?

When did I say I loathed a decent, hardworking progressive?

[ehrnst]

67. 3..2...1.. And yer back!

Couldn't quit me, huh?

Doesn't your own medicine taste the best?

[Kentonio]

68. When you post fake quotes, then yes you are likely to get me to repudiate them.

Maybe you might considering being a little more adult about things?

[ehrnst]

69. Ah, the "be an adult" passive aggressive jab. Nice choice.

I would suggest that you use the "ignore feature" since you are so easily upset by discussion that doesn't go the way you wish.

Also, that alternate venue for the strokes you evidently require.

[Kentonio]

71. You do seem stuck on this idea of trying to drive me away to another site.

I'd hate to see you fall foul of the rules here, so might I politely suggest you go and re-read them, perhaps paying special attention to the sections on civility, divisive group attacks, not keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary, and in particular the prohibition on bashing Democratic public figures. Just in case you were curious by the way, Bernie Sanders is named in that rule as an example.

I really do hope that helps you, and that you no longer feel the need to attack other Democrats. We have a long fight against Trump and his cronies, and it would be a shame to waste that energy fighting your own side.

You have a lovely day now.

[ehrnst]

72. Isn't that civilized?

Being all concerned that you have helped me, and all.

I really hope that you have learned something about attacking Democrats, and that even those that don't walk lockstep with you might have a glimmer of hope of being "progressive." Some day.

If I have contributed to that, and also inspired you to re-read the rules of DU, then my day is ever so much lovelier.

Same right back at you.

[PotatoChip]

84. There are some red pockets in Vermont.

And as Thom Hartmann has observed in the past, it wasn't at all unusual to see a Bernie sign in amidst a yard full of R signs. He's always been a Progressive that gets things done. Has integrity too. They like that about him enough to overlook his liberal views on social issues.

[ehrnst]

85. So Bernie says.

People back home have mixed reviews.

"Burdened by the cross of his socialist crusade, he was a scold whose counter-culture moralizing appealed to the state's liberal sensibilities as well as its conservatives, who embraced his gun ownership stance, his defense of individual rights, an antipathy toward big corporations and, generally speaking, his stick-it-to-them approach to politics."

http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-permalink-12189.html


https://mic.com/articles/124341/here-s-how-black-people-actually-fare-in-vermont-with-bernie-sanders-as-their-senator#.sNkS81hLp

And indeed Bernie has a rather narrow definition of 'progressive' so how does one compare him to other 'progressives' on getting things done if so few meet the definition?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/bernie_sanders_definition_of_progressive_is_a_very_selective_one.html

This is not about "fighting the primaries" these articles on the topic we are discussing were written then.

[stuffmatters]

9. Very popular, dynamic grass roots candidate. Hope Sanders does some big rallies there with him.

It's Sanders who will draw the Independents, every single vote of which Quist needs if he's to squeak through. I'd keep Perez & DNC on the low profile button there...money not messenger in this one.

I just watched Maher's "Dick Party" New Rules. This, cleaned up and adding the selling away our internet privacy., is the campaign message(ads) these Dem challengers should be sending. Talk about adding one more vote to Mitch and Ryans Dick Party, list the Republican's indefensible Congressional votes so far, and let people decide they want a common good representative instead..

[ehrnst]

49. He didn't draw the voters for his candidates in California. (nt)

[stuffmatters]

86. Agree to disagree

And not interested in arguing the 2016 orimary or election.. I saw what a grass roots candidate did with help from Bernie's Org in absence of DNC etc against Issa first hand in astonishingly delivering Northern San Diego County. Not sure what or why you made this point, and really, again, that's 2016.

Anytime we need to fight we need to tailor our most apt and effective tools for the exact situation.. My hope is Sanders goes to help him. Look at this candidate, who he is and why he is a folk legend in his state. Franken would also be a good fit and draw a big crowds for this candidate in this demographic. We're not after the already Dem votes here, I'm sure they're raring to vote in such an unexpected opportunity. Warren would also do a lot of good here. It's the Independents and apathetics/disaffecteds that we need here.

Just my opinion.

[ehrnst]

87. I'm referring to 2017 runoff/special elections

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/jimmy-gomez-california-june-runoff-236902B

And since you don't want to talk about what happened to the candidates that he endorsed, we won't.

[stuffmatters]

88. Fighting the Repubs as hard as we can ALL together is what's needed now.

[ehrnst]

89. I understand that. I was simply responding to your claim

disagreeing with me that those he endorsed in California in April didn't do well.

[stuffmatters]

93. I recommend you read Charles Pierce today on Ks election results last night..

[SaschaHM]

15. I just want him to make a statement that he's not running in 2020.

He can stay around and be useful after that imo.

[ehrnst]

18. He's not known for graceful exits, even when it's clear things are not going to happen. (nt)

[Sunlei]

22. bunch of BS! If he wanted to divide the party he would have run as Independent in General Election!

bunch of BS, the 'go away'. The man is currently a sitting Senator and works hard for US- every fucking day.

[ehrnst]

24. To be a disruptor, one must be in the middle of what one wishes to disrupt. (nt)

[Sunlei]

21. Hope Sanders can make a difference. Rs will pile in lots of time & money to keep the spot Repub.

Some of these Republican strongholds did 'like' and vote for Sanders in the primary

[Recursion]

31. Then again Sanders campaigned hard for Feingold, who lost WI worse than Clinton did

I think there's a danger of drinking your own koolaid sometimes, and thinking what you're saying is what everybody wants to hear.

[ehrnst]

43. Indeed. (nt)

[Nevernose]

70. He campaigned hard for Hillary, too

Come to think of it.

I think it's mix of voters wanting "change" -- i.e. Clinton and Feingold are old guard --and Bernie drinking his own kool aid. Feingold, IMO, was a victim of Hillary-hate. And I don't even blame Russia for Hill's loss as much as I blame the 25 year old anti-Hillary industry.

[ecstatic]

35. Great! 👍 nt

[nikibatts]

91. Did Bernie go to Kansas?

[Donkees]

92. Quist Campaign Fundraising Tops $1.3 Million

Quist Campaign Fundraising Tops $1.3 Million


Excerpt:

Democratic candidate for Congress Rob Quist today released his first quarter of 2017 fundraising total.

"Just yesterday we crested $1.3 million in contributions," Quist said at a campaign event in Great Falls this morning.

His campaign says he raised nearly a million dollars in March alone, via more than 22,000 individual contributions, with an average donation of $40 each.

There's no evidence that the national Democratic party is spending on Quist's behalf, but groups affiliated with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are backing him.

A national Republican super-PAC has spent at least $700,000 on television ads for Gianforte.

The Quist campaign today hinted that they expect Bernie Sanders to make an appearance in Montana on Quist's behalf.

http://mtpr.org/post/quist-campaign-fundraising-tops-13-million

[jalan48]

94. Bernie's a popular (populist) guy. He helps Democrats win.

[Donkees]

95. Resist! Insist on Quist!