Bernie Sanders Team Explains Why He Wont Hand Over His Donor List

[still_one]

"During his insurgent run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) built one of the most valuable tools in all of politics: his list of donors.

That list represents a veritable gold mine. It helped Sanders smash online fundraising records and build a grassroots donation structure that nearly propelled him to the presidency.

The fact that many of the names on the list aren’t traditional Democrats ― or self-identified Democrats at all ― makes it all the more valuable.

And yet, since he dropped out of the primary, Sanders has steadfastly refused to hand over his list to the Democratic Party, much to the chagrin of those who say it could be crucial to help build opposition to Donald Trump’s presidency.

On this episode of the “Candidate Confessional” podcast, the team directly responsible for building that list argues it wouldn’t particularly make a difference even if Sanders gave it to the Democratic National Committee.

“The list is not just some magical vehicle that anyone can tap into,” explains Robin Curran of the firm Revolution Messaging. “It was directly tied to the message Bernie carried on the campaign, and without that message, we would not have had the fundraising success that we did.”

As Curran argues, Sanders had a unique ability to turn on an online fundraising spigot, and the people who gave money to him aren’t lemmings willing to give to just anyone.

“People want the list but good luck,” says Michael Whitney, another strategist with the firm. “You can have it but you’re not going to raise off it.”

“It’s like the hammer of Thor,” adds Tim Tagaris, who also works for the firm. “You can have it but only a few people can wield it.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-donor-list_us_5952776fe4b05c37bb799b97?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Can someone please explain to me the reason why they list won't be shared with the DNC? I fail to see the explanation in this article?

[emulatorloo]

1. Translation: Bernie's seriously considering a run in 2020

[still_one]

7. That should NOT stop him from giving the list to the DNC, unless of course he doesn't want to

be associated with the Democratic party?

[Arazi]

13. Hillary didnt turn over her list after her 1st run either

Because it was obvious she was going to run again.

This is pretty typical and normal

[still_one]

17. Then why give such a convoluted explanation, which is no explanation? Just say no comment

no one is forced to comment

[emulatorloo]

18. CYA

[mythology]

41. They did clearly answer the question

The list is of Sanders supporters, many of whom are deeply skeptical of the DNC (for mostly bad reasons in my opinion), and so giving/selling the list would harm Sanders' credibility with them and for little gain since the supporters aren't predisposed to donate to the DNC. If Sanders keeps that list and sells/gives access to it, to a smaller number of candidates that are in his mold, it would have power.

I don't see the reason for criticism here.

[pnwmom]

110. Hillary DID share her list. She accepted the SOS position, remember?

She wasn't planning to run in 2012.

Under Federal campaign finance rules applying to both parties, she was required to rent it out, rather than give it away, and she did.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/Campaigns-Make-Cash-Off-Donor-Contact-Info-209544-1.html

Under campaign finance rules, the campaign's donor list is an asset that she cannot simply give away to groups or campaigns — they have to pay to rent it.

The infusion of funds from rental fees was badly needed by Clinton's presidential campaign because it had $5.9 million in debt at the end of the 2008 election cycle. The campaign has since lowered this debt to $274,000 through the end of September.

Under campaign finance rules, the campaign's donor list is an asset that she cannot simply give away to groups or campaigns — they have to pay to rent it. The infusion of funds from rental fees was badly needed by Clinton's presidential campaign because it had $5.9 million in debt at the end of the 2008 election cycle. The campaign has since lowered this debt to $274,000 through the end of September.

[Jakes Progress]

59. This.

As an independent would be my guess.

[Demsrule86]

102. I hope he doesn't expect to run as a Democrat.

[Reiyuki]

106. Rather Bernie run as 3rd party?

You'd rather Bernie run as a 3rd party candidate? Regardless of opinion, he was darn close to winning the DNC prmaries last time.

Forcing 1/2 of the party off to another ticket is a recipe for failure.

I don't know how these two groups can reconcile (or if they can), but I know what happens if they don't.

[NCTraveler]

2. It's his personal source of new found power.

Wanting to maintain personal power is nothing new for career politicians. Thankfully we have many in our party who are about the greater good.

[nikibatts]

51. Perhaps there are some contributors who won't mind giving their names to the DNC?

[NCTraveler]

66. Overall, they are about the individual, not the collective. nt.

[Hekate]

53. I particularly like "Hammer of Thor"

There can be only one.

[NurseJackie]

3. The article lacks specificity but the explanation you seek has always been clear to me.

I believe he intends to run again. (For obvious reasons, it's best that I say no more about that subject.)

[still_one]

9. As I said above, that should not stop him from giving the list to the Democratic party, unless

he doesn't want to be part associated with the Democratic party

[NurseJackie]

14. You are correct with regard to both observations.

I was hoping for more from an ally. But, perhaps I'm just expecting too much.

[OhNo-Really]

42. or maybe throw support to someone.....Warren please

[NurseJackie]

60. I doubt it. I just don't see anything like that happening. It seems highly unlikely to me.

[pirateshipdude]

4. Such a team player. Eom

[Wounded Bear]

5. Because he's not really a Democrat...

that's not an insult, just a fact. Probably considering another run.

We need some fresh blood. Bernie's not it, really. That's about all I'll say about 2020. I kind of swore off that subject until after 2018.

[Blue_Tires]

6. It's just a carrot he can dangle over the party

as long as they keep kissing his ass...

[mfcorey1]

8. Keep the damn list and I wish the DNC would stop begging for it. It is time to step out

into a new era let go of some of the past that will find us in 2018 unprepared for any political competition. Stop wasting time.

[pirateshipdude]

11. Sanders didn't have that much support in 2016.

After the behavior of the last couple years, he has even less. I do not see a huge threat. I agree, quit asking and let him go away. Or do his side show, whatever. Shore up the Democratic base and find our strength with like thinkers. Our policies rules, nationally.

[snooper2]

10. He is SUPER BERNIE! Only he and yes only HE can pull the cold hard cash out of their wallets!

When he speaks truth to POWER the security codes on the back of credit cards go sailing through the wind!


LOL

[Trial_By_Fire]

12. Like most everyone says, "He's not a democrat"

Sanders works very hard for his country and his supporters. It's his email list.

He is not contractually obligated to give that info to the DNC. And the way
people treat him here and elsewhere, why should he?

[emulatorloo]

19. The great majority here at DU like and/or support Bernie.

Like every person on earth, he is not infallible.

Therefore while I may agree with most everything he represents, he sometimes says things or proposes things I disagree with.

DU has a long tradition of offering constructive criticism of our elected representatives.

We don't march lockstep here. There aren't any sacred cows. No politician is perfect. That's reality.

If you see lies and smears, alert. If you see constructive criticism, argue.

Lastly this is a just discussion board made up of liberals and progressives, not some sort of "official body." what goes on here has nothing to do with the decision to withhold his donor list. That's his decision and I understand it. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with DU.

[Me.]

28. Due Respect But I Don't Think That's True

"The great majority here at DU like and/or support Bernie"

[Arazi]

35. Agreed 100%

[LisaM]

26. No, but the list was built while he was running on the Democratic ticket.

So, on some level, if he was interested in the unity he says it is, he should feel some obligation to help the Democrats.

[hrmjustin]

52. Hillary could have used that donor list.

[Demsrule86]

103. Sen. Sanders can keep his email list as far as I a concerned. He can run again in 20

if he chooses (free country) However, I hope he doesn't expect to run as a Democrat because as you pointed out, he is not a Democrat.

[dragonlady]

15. The answer is in the quotes in the original post

I've been a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party since 2000 and have done and still do considerable volunteer work for it. I voted for Hillary in the November election. But I'm on Bernie's contribution list too, and I can tell you that I make political donations exclusively to individual candidates who strike me as truly dedicated to the values and policies that the Democratic Party should stand for. As a party member I get daily emails asking for money, but they fall victim to my delete key. Any solicitations from them that came from Bernie's list would meet the same fate. This is just my personal opinion, but I think many Bernie donors responded to him for similar reasons and would feel betrayed if their names were turned over to the Democratic Party for the crush of solicitations. Bernie understands people and he understands this. As I said, it's just my opinion. And I don't think he plans to run for president again.

[politicaljunkie41910]

56. That list is not magical contrary to what the OP claims:

“The list is not just some magical vehicle that anyone can tap into,” explains Robin Curran of the firm Revolution Messaging. “It was directly tied to the message Bernie carried on the campaign, and without that message, we would not have had the fundraising success that we did.”

I've been a registered member of the Democratic Party for 40 years and I've gotten more than my fair share of those types of letters. For every one person that feels that Bernie's list is magical there are 20 others who will donate because the recipient is the party's nominee or a primary candidate who looks promising. It may feed Bernie's ego to believe that list is gold, but that is just ego. I get hundreds of emails and fundraising letters during the campaign season and I donate to those I wish to in the primaries and I support the party's nominee afterwards, with an emphasis on "the Party".

[killbotfactory]

16. Why would subject his supporters to more fucking spam?

Good Lord, I donated to Ossoff and they relentlessly spammed me, even after I unsubscribed. It was ridiculous. Same with the DCCC, if any candidate I donated to gave my info to them.

[emulatorloo]

20. DCCC's job is to take back the House. Is that so terrible?

[killbotfactory]

21. If you make people regret donating to you, yes it is. nt

[emulatorloo]

22. My attitude is to give em a break. No skin off my ass if they email me

If I can't afford to give right then I delete, and hope there is someone else who will be able to give.

Ymmv


Kinda important to me to get more Dems in the house though.

[still_one]

23. Exactly. You can also mark it as spam if you don't want to see it, and it will be sent directly

to trash, and you won't see it.

That is a lame excuse.

I get a lot of email, regular mail, and phone calls from charities, the Democratic party, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, etc., and it doesn't bother me in the least.

For the email where I do not wish to donate right now, I just send it to trash. For the regular mail I do not want to donate, I just recycle, for the phone calls, I don't answer caller IDs I do not recognize, or do not want to answer

[killbotfactory]

61. They send emails that have headlines that mimic spam ads that give you malware

I WANT to support democrats I donate to, and organizations I support, when I am able. I expect to get emails from them every once in a while especially when important events are occurring. I don't want to have to mark the senders as spam because they email me five times a day with obnoxious click-bait subjects.

[Gothmog]

24. Sanders is not a part of the Democrat party and may run as an indie

[R B Garr]

25. lol, this is so typical of his hypocritical drama.

He has his own rigged system but holds others to entirely different standards.

[ciaobaby]

31. Not So.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

27. Because he's not a Democrat and is not interested in helping the Democratic party.

I mean, that was pretty clear from his actions in 2016. This is just frosting.

[ciaobaby]

32. Yet the Dems can't win without him and his supporters and they know it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

33. Lol.

[still_one]

34. One thing I am sure of, a lot of his supporters are Democrats, and if he decides to

undermine and trash the Democratic party, instead of working with Democrats, he is going to lose their support

[ehrnst]

101. Indeed. (nt)

[Cha]

79. That goes two ways. The Democratic Party is

is Strong.. I don't care what those who have a different agenda have to say about it.

[ehrnst]

100. I think that may be overestimating the appeal.

If the success of candidates that he endorses is any measure, in any case.

The most reliable base for Democrats is black women, and Sanders has not shown a strong appeal with them.

Vermont's demographic is very white, and that may be why his appeal there is strong, and strong in the white straight male sector of the Democrats.

Democrats are now predominantly other than white, straight male, though not always as vocal.

Loud doesn't always = numerous, as we have seen.

[progressoid]

64. Obama held onto his list until 2015

I guess that means he's not a Democrat and is not interested in helping the Democratic party either.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

71. Nah, I'm guessing his reasons were probably different.

[progressoid]

74. Sure. He probably needed it for his run for a third term.

[Me.]

29. My Guess...

He's holding out for some type of huge payday.

[hrmjustin]

36. If he had won the nomination he would have received the DNC and Hillary's donor list.

There is no excuse for not sharing his donor list with the party!

[Arazi]

62. Nope. Hillary didn't give Obama her list in 2008

Nobody gives it unless they're not planning on running again

[hrmjustin]

63. That would describe Hillary.

If Sanders had won her Political career would have been over at that moment.

[progressoid]

65. Like Obama did.

Oh, wait. No.

He kept his until 2015.

[hrmjustin]

69. So that justifies this?

[NurseJackie]

78. Wait, were the Democrats trying to re-take the White House after Obama won?

Oh, wait. No. Obama was the one IN the White House, Right? So whodafuck cares?

========================
QUOTE: "He kept his until 2015."
========================

[progressoid]

91. The Clinton Campaign cared.

Early last year, the fate of the list sparked tensions between Obama and Clinton because there was no guarantee that his remaining campaign apparatus would grant the former secretary of State access to it. And some in the Clinton camp feared that Obama would hold on to the data with the purpose of helping to build the president’s library in Chicago.

“It was a very real concern at the time because I know a lot of people felt like we could’ve used all the help we could get,” the Clinton ally said.

The DNC last summer reportedly reached a deal to form a joint committee tasked with paying off the Obama’s campaign’s nearly $2.4 million in debt.

In exchange, the DNC was granted full access to the president’s formidable email list.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/284372-clinton-to-take-hold-of-storied-obama-email-list

[NurseJackie]

97. LOL

[NurseJackie]

75. YOU are thinking in a very rational and unselfish way.

[pandr32]

37. He was in repeated trouble with the FEC

Only a small percentage of his donations were the "$27" ones he claimed were his average. Far too many were coming from out of country and other fundraising abnormalities. He still had not filed his 2016 campaign finance report by the May 15, 2017 deadline and asked for yet another extension.
I am not bashing. His problems with campaign violations is a matter of record. Perhaps he is keeping his list close to the vest to protect his donor sources or for legal reasons--not to "not share" out of spite or audacity.
Just a thought.

[Trial_By_Fire]

38. Can you prove what you posted with a link?

This should be interesting...

[R B Garr]

39. I doubt you need a link, because it's common knowledge.

[Trial_By_Fire]

43. That's why it is very difficult here at times...

Such an inflammatory statement by the poster and there is no proof...

I never heard of 'this' accusation before so it must be 'common knowledge' (read: hope it's true)
amongst only certain people...

[R B Garr]

72. Your own comment "this should be interesting....." is inflammatory.

It looks like preemptive ridicule, as if you will be the arbiter of reality. Now you're pretending that the FEC investigation which has been widely reported is just wishful thinking ("read: hope it's true&quot . Reality and facts are really not negotiable. If you follow campaigns closely, I bet you know their campaign finance history -- it's not inflammatory for someone to discuss what has been reported by media outlets.

[seaglass]

44. Go look at the FEC reports. The $27 was a marketing ploy. When someone donates 2000.00

at $27 a pop it is meaningless except for a soundbite.

https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&committee_id=C00577130&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016&min_amount=0.00&max_amount=200.00

Here's a start for you. contributions made to Bernie 2016 sorted from $0-$200. then click on individual names who donated $1 and see how much they actually donated. Not $27

[Trial_By_Fire]

45. Thank you very much - I'll look at that right now.

Do you have any idea what "Far too many were coming from out of country and other fundraising abnormalities. '
comes from?

[seaglass]

48. Yes, there were contributions from donors with foreign addresses along with donors

who gave more than the legal amounts which had to be reimbursed.

[Trial_By_Fire]

58. Just some preliminary thoughts:

First, the $27 donation was just the average and Sanders said that. Turns out, only 100,000 donations
were actually $27. But average is computed from all donations.

I can see where foreigners would donate - I am sure many candidates get foreign donations. The kicker
is who and why the individual donor donated...

I am going to try to download all 3 million plus records and run it thru a spreadsheet (4/2015 to 11/7/2016).

Thanks again.

[pandr32]

54. So many links

...and lots of information for looking into the Sanders campaign FEC violations, his lack of proper address to these violations and his repeated extensions requested for his 2016 campaign financial report...still.
Here is a single link, but feel free to google and browse through all the links that are available. Nothing is hidden if you venture forth.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/20/obscene-calls-bernie-sanders-fec-troubles.html

[Trial_By_Fire]

67. Opinion pieces are just that... next?

[Trial_By_Fire]

46. Is 1/1/2015 the best date to use for this search?

Just preliminary data shows 258,000 $1 donations...

[seaglass]

49. The coverage dates from the link was 4/2015-12/2016. I believe he announced in 4/2015. n/t

[seaglass]

50. If you click on the donor's name it shows the total they gave. n/t

[pnwmom]

70. There are many, many links out there. Here's a few.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-bernie-sanders-donors-who-are-giving-too-much/482418/

Max Whittaker / Reuters May 13, 2016

The Donors Who Love Bernie Sanders A Little Too Much
The FEC has notified the campaign that thousands of its 2.4 million contributors may be violating federal limits.


https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?mcubz=2

Feb.12, 2016

The Federal Election Commission has asked the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont to re-examine contributions from more than a hundred donors who appear to have given more than the legally permissible amount.
The vast majority of the donors gave several small contributions to Mr. Sanders for the Democratic primary that eventually totaled more than the $2,700 limit, according to a letter the election commission sent to Mr. Sanders on Thursday.


https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/

Bernie 2016, the fundraising machine of the Bernie Sanders campaign, has been cited for campaign finance violations that include over $23 million in unitemized contributions in a recent letter from the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The 43-page letter, dated 11 February 2016, lists ten separate violation areas and calls for a response by 17 March 2016. The letter is a preliminary review of Bernie 2016’s Year-End Report covering 2015.

[Trial_By_Fire]

68. OK, first the $27 was the mathematical average from all contributions...

You may not like it but he did say it was just the average donation.

Second, there is nothing wrong with out-of-county donations - it only matters
who and why they are contributing. I am sure all/most candidates get foreign donations.

And, there is nothing wrong or suspicious that a candidate requests an FEC filing
extension - Sanders is a busy man.

[pnwmom]

73. And he achieved this by so many people giving MULTIPLE small donations, often on the same DAY.

I provided links to this in response to another of your posts.

[Trial_By_Fire]

81. So what...?

Can't control donations from donors...

[pnwmom]

84. Sure you can. You can receive a thousand dollar check and call the donor back

and ask them to send ten checks for a hundred instead.

It makes your numbers so much prettier.

Or you can just get the word out that big donations are nice, but it's better if they come in smaller, multiple checks.

When you can see so many multiple checks by the same person on the same day, you know that this was the game they were playing.

[R B Garr]

76. Well! No surprise here! You are indeed well familiar with this subject matter.

No need for links, as you are completely immersed in it already, even knowing how busy people are.

[pandr32]

87. The $27 contribution claim was a catchy pitch

After Larry David spoofed Bernie on SNL with the $27 donation claim it stuck and Bernie began repeating it himself--actually made a $27 donation option on his website. It was marketing genius, but if you look at the actual averages, it wasn't ever $27, though close a couple of months after it became campaign shtick.
I don't know why you claim I "may not like it"--what's with that?
I merely pointed out that Bernie may have reasons not to disclose his donor list other than the ones discussed above my first post on this thread, and legal reasons may very well be why, especially considering he has yet to disclose his campaign finance report from last year. His last extension deadline was sometime this month. Have you heard?
By the way, Bernie certainly is not any busier than other politicians who do make their filings and disclosures in time. There are rules for foreign donations and that is something that got Bernie in trouble with the FEC.

[Trial_By_Fire]

89. Just for comparison, check this out:

The Obama/Biden had to pay $191k in fines.

But you see, I don't get all bent out of shape for things like this...


http://classic.fec.gov/data/AdminFine.do?format=html

OBAMA FOR AMERICA 48H 2008 $191,135.00 President US 00 OBAMA, BARACK / JOSEPH R. BIDEN N Y

[R B Garr]

90. Nice try, but Sanders' boasted about not using PACs and lambasted others for

taking dirty money -- with no proof. Yet, he had significant FEC irregularities of his own while, all while refusing to abide by FEC accountability filing deadlines. Once again, it's the hypocrisy.

[Trial_By_Fire]

92. Yes, it is the hypocrisy... just not Sanders'

[R B Garr]

93. Wrong. When you hold yourself out as a moral authority and accuse others

of corruption for every campaign contribution, then you lose credibility when you cannot reconcile your own affairs.

[Trial_By_Fire]

94. Well,...

Just make it a point of yours never to vote for Sanders for anything!

Case closed...

[R B Garr]

95. It will be case closed when he holds himself to the same standards he

imposes on others.

[dembotoz]

40. pretty routine not to turn over the list. give names? yes introductions? yes turn over the list? no

protect his contributors

been around for a long time.

folks just do not turn over the list
doesn't happen
just doesn't

[Maven]

55. Translation: "We used you, and if you want our precious list, you'll let us do it again" nt

[oasis]

57. Bernie's continuing lecture series on the direction of the Dem Party is more

valuable than any stinkin' donor list.

So back off.

[MiltonBrown]

77. It means that the people on the list won't donate to candidates who are also

funded by Wall Street

[left-of-center2012]

80. So, while being attacked, he's asked for his donor list?

[emulatorloo]

82. Links to DNC co-chairs Ellison and Perez attacking Bernie. Or any one working under Perez/Ellison

at the DNC.

Thanks in advance.

[RadiationTherapy]

83. I presume it is because the DNC would have no effective rhetoric for Bernie's left-liberals.

The DNC has a major image problem and Bernie's donors are one of their biggest problems.

[emulatorloo]

85. Ellison's left-liberal and co-chairs the DNC.

[RadiationTherapy]

86. I don't see what that has to do with DNC rhetoric and the ideologies of people on Bernie's list.

When the DNC has some effective leftist rhetoric, the donor list will fill itself.

[emulatorloo]

88. Ellison and Perez are both left-liberals. They generate the rhetoric of today's DNC.

We're probably talking at cross purposes.

It is Bernie's decision to withhold his donor list and I understand him completely for doing so.

My sense is he's considering another run for President. So of course it makes since he would want to hold on to that list exclusively.

Where we may disagree is with the justification given by Robin Curran of Revolution Messaging.

I find it to be disingenuous PR talk. You maybe take him at face value.

[RadiationTherapy]

98. Well, as a communication scholar, I presume most talk to be PR and, to some extent,

disingenuous.

[emulatorloo]

99. Interesting

Comm Studies grad here.

Have a great night.

[aikoaiko]

105. Ellison is deputy chair - not co-chair

There is only one chair of the DNC.

[redgreenandblue]

104. I'm on that list and I am glad that the list won't be shared with third parties.

Not even the DNC.

I would consider that a violation of trust. I imagine others feel the same way. Donations were made with the implicit understanding that this is an exclusive transaction between the donor and the Sanders campaign, not an invitation for other groups to solicit for money.

The list would be useless to the DNC, as the likelihood that they might raise money from it is small. On the other hand, Sanders would more than likely damage his public image by turning it over to anyone.

I am aware that the DNC exists. If I ever feel the need to donate to them, I will do so, the same way I donated to the Sanders campaign without any sort of invitation. No need for email or other types of spam.

[Lil Missy]

107. Forget Bernie and his supporters who won't vote for the nominee if it's not their guy.

There are far more votes in the middle - a Democrat has to be ELECTED before they can carry out any platform, getting gw and the orange jackass were BIG steps in the wrong direction.

[retrowire]

108. It's as simple as this.

That list is just contact info.

Those people volunteered to be contacted by Bernie's message.

Give that contact info to the DNC.

Now those people will be contacted by the DNC.

What gives you the idea that they'll immediately fall in love with the Democratic Party just like they did Bernie?

It's just not that simple.

[still_one]

111. If that is the case then his objective to run as a Democrat wasn't to make the Democratic party

stronger, but just to use it for his own political ambitions.

[retrowire]

112. Here's my problem with that reasoning.

The Democratic Party has been around for hundreds of years hasn't it?

Bernie's been around less than that.

And in my case and many others, Bernie is who led to my DISCOVERY of the Democratic party.

Your line of thinking is, Bernie got big using the Democratic Party.

But my line of thinking is the other way, The Democratic Party got bigger because of Bernie.

Well it could have gotten bigger had the party been more welcoming of the youth but I'm still here and so are many other newcomers thanks to Bernie.

I'm just saying, Bernie certainly utilized the Democratic Party as a means to have more visibility, a platform to be seen from because you and I know it, greens do not get media coverage. I think it was smart of him. Hell, he still got the least coverage of any candidate running in the media. He was lucky to have become viral.

But he didn't hurt Hillary, Russia did. He didn't hurt the party, we're still here. So Bernie did not damage the party. You know that blame is elsewhere. Hillary is above that damage. Blame JPR, blame Republicans, blame Russia but don't blame Bernie. He did what ANY primary candidate would have done. Compete.

Level headed Bernie supporters like myself and many others knew that the Democratic Party was the ONLY choice to make if we were to have a chance at enacting his views and platform. And we stayed.