This is only the BEGINNING!

[Powers Hapgood]

Take it from an aging McGovernite, no matter what happens on Super Tuesday the movement started by the Sanders campaign is only beginning. Let's face the fact that the Presidential bid was a long shot from day one. Let's face the fact that the Democratic Party really is what many of us have said for years: the other half of Corporate America's political stranglehold Machine. But let's not overlook the tremendous accomplishments that have been made so far, and the many more that can be attained in this campaign and in the years to come.

We have actually started a discussion of democratic socialism in the American mainstream ... that's a major accomplishment all its own. The media coverage has been deficient, that's for sure. But considering that the dreaded "S" word could hardly have been spoken in the national media prior to this, something really has changed. Not only that, this campaign has pretty well established that the strongest ideological wave among American youth is democratic socialism (with no particular help from the media, either). The socialist genie has been uncorked at last, and it's our task to keep it from being condemned back to the lamp.

The challenge is not whether one person becomes President. Elections come and go, and political winds have many eddies and currents -- and politics always proves that "what goes around comes around." The challenge is to maximize the success of the Sanders Campaign and then BUILD ON IT! A new wave of progressive, democratic socialist politics is possible. We need more mainstream politicians embracing democratic socialism. But that can only happen if grassroots activists work towards building a democratic socialist MAJORITY! That's the task in front of us. Regardless of the election outcome, a robust and vital American Left must emerge. Bernie has shown us that it's possible by staying true to ourselves and speak truth to power. Don't let the thrill of electoral victory or the agony of electoral defeat divert your attention from that critical understanding.

[Faux pas]

1. K N R

[corbettkroehler]

2. I Must Demur

I'm with Bernie 100%, having donated $ many times. However, your assessment is off. Without Bernie in the White House, the trend toward corporate control of the DNC will accelerate. Even Howard Dean, whose 50-State Strategy helped elect Barack Obama, backs Hillary.

The DNC is a disaster under Obama (and I voted for him twice!)!

Without Bernie, the conversation about Progressivism will vanish for decades.

[2pooped2pop]

5. And they will make sure that no one can rise up and use the internet to beat them in the future.

Plus I have friends who can not survive another four or more years of the same ol same ol.

[Powers Hapgood]

6. Remember Debs . . .

The same was said of Eugene V. Debs a century ago. And yes, the Socialist Party fizzled, even though Norman Thomas did an admirable job of carrying the torch.

BUT, within a decade and a half after Debs' last campaign, the New Deal incorporated the bulk of the Socialist Party platform.

I would also suggest that Bernie Sanders would assuredly agree with my position in this posting. Bernie is not an egotist like Trump, or a messianic maniac like Cruz. He knows that the cause of progressive politics does not rest simply on one leader's shoulders. And, frankly he's way more concerned about keeping people involved in the struggle than he is about his own political career. The Revolution can only stop if YOU let it be stopped.

[tk2kewl]

3. and delegates...

4,051 total unpledged delegates in the primary.

Clinton has 91 unpledged delegates so far.

Sander has 65 unpledged delegates so far.

There are 865 unpledged delegates available today.

Even if Clinton won every single one of the available unpledged delegates, which clearly is not going to happen, she would have less than 24% of all of the total unpledged delegates.

So we have a long way to go. Every vote in every state matters.

[merrily]

4. "We all remember Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." Hillary Clinton, 2008 primary

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=0

In connection with a series of posts about the Democratic Party that I have been writing for Jackpine Radical, I happened to read, only a few hours ago, that the outcome of the 1968 primary was still very uncertain when RFK was killed. (BTW, Sirhan Sirhan, who may or may not have shot RFK, was denied parole recently.) Apparently, scholars argued about that for a long time and there were about four different theories of the outcome, had RFK remained in the race. What a historic, pivotal election that was!

It can hardly be doubted that Democrats would have beaten Tricky Dick in 1968, as they had in 1960, but for the party bosses backing Humphrey, whom Democratic voters associated with JOhnson's war policies. The irony is that, behind the scenes, Humphrey had been against the war. However, he was not going to stab Johnson in the back by disclosing that, unless Johnson gave him permission, which Johnson refused.

Party bosses also tried to market him as a conservative Dem (for that era) in order to keep the (white) Southern vote, which had begun slipping away after the Civil Rights Act of 1964--and Johnson had doubled down with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, marketing Humphrey that way proved tone deaf and self destructive, what with Wallace running third party on segregration and "law and order," and the Party really having to rely on liberals, who were at the height of anti-war protests. (The guy who claimed George Washington or Abe Lincoln or some Framer or other thinks the Voting Act is no longer necessary passed recently.)

The family of Mayor Daley, who ran Chicago in 1968, when demonstrators were beaten, still runs Chicago. His son replaced Rahm in the White House, while Rahm went on to his dream job, Mayor of Chicago, presumably with the blessing of the Daley family; and then proceeded to mess up royally, IMO, including with schools and police. (RESIGN, RAHM.)

Amazing how that election still very much reverberates in this year's primary and in the Democratic Party in general, including in various memes, both true and false.

[corbettkroehler]

9. I Was Surprised When Bernie Received Secret Service So Soon But Am Glad

This is an important reminder. The film Bobby included recordings of Mr. Kennedy's campaign speeches from 1968. His poverty tour was most admirable and moving.

[merrily]

10. Nothing the billionaires love more than another Democratic candidate for President who worries

about equal rights and hungry people

Did you happen to read about Sirhan Sirhan's parole hearing? A guy who was shot in 1968 showed up to say that, from the position of the bullets and where he was versus where RFK was, Sirhan did not shoot RFK, only the guy who showed up at the hearing. And he wanted Sirhan paroled.

Well, parole didn't happen and it never will. But it was very interesting to read.

Another single shooter claim kind of contradicted by eye witnesses. Also, Sirhan has claimed he remembers nothing of that day, also interesting.

[starroute]

7. There is a lot of room for a progressive movement to make waves

Bernie has shown his fundraising prowess. What if some of that was turned towards downticket candidates?

The Democrats have been slaughtered at the state level for years -- meaning there have to be a lot of easy pickings as the GOP falters. But the Democratic establishment has shown no serious interest in making up that ground by supporting genuinely progressive candidates. They run DINOs, or potential DINOs with no local support -- or if a progressive candidate does get on the ballot, they don't bother supporting them at all.

That's been a disaster, but now it presents an opportunity. If we become a movement with fundraising clout, we can easily outspend the DNC. We can make sure that true progressives get the support they need to run. We can even field independents to run against DINOs.

One goal would be a significant progressive caucus in Congress -- one strong enough to have a determining voice in legislation. Another would be to regain enough state legislatures before the 2020 census to undo the devastating effects of gerrymandering. And the business-as-usual Democrats have no ability to do that, but we do.

[merrily]

11. A myth has been created about outspending.

So far, no evidence exists to prove you can defeat a candidate only if you outspend them. Yes, you need money, but there may be a cut-off point, even a point of diminishing returns.

There are only so many broadcast ads you can run without ticking people off royally, only so much oppo research you can do on one couple.

Spending beyond ads and travel doesn't make you likelier to win. $300 haircuts charged to the campaign did nothing for Edwards. Wardrobe charged to the campaign did nothing for Palin. During the campaign of 2008, Obama traveled in a plane custom made to replicate Air Force One, down to some Presidential symbol--either an eagle or the seal--I've forgotten now--on the headrest covers. McCain traveled commercial or on his wife's plane (getting his wrist slapped by the FEC for the latter). Did the mode of travel make Obama likelier to win?

Are stories of Hillary's PAC raising so many millions helping or hurting Hillary? And so on.

[Phlem]

12. I'm in and my position exactly.

It's more than just Bernie now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280126404