Lee H. wrote us a letter, asking why Bernie Sanders is allowed to run as a Democrat. How can he support the candidates down the ticket if he doesn’t believe in the party in the first place? And if he can’t help senators and representatives get elected, how can he hope to get anything passed, much less, a “revolution?”

In fact, when Bernie was upfront about it on MSNBC,

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn’t say if he will turn his fundraising juggernaut toward the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees and down-ballot Democratic candidates in a Wednesday night interview on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

Host Rachel Maddow said rival Hillary Clinton has been fundraising for her campaign as well as the Democratic Party. Will the Sanders campaign begin this type of fundraising as well, Maddow asked.

“We’ll see,” Sanders said.

How much of a difference are we talking?

One particular difference between the campaigns has been generating attention on this site: Clinton raised $18 million dollars for the Democratic National Committee, to be used in the general election to support Democratic candidates, while it appears Bernie Sanders has raised none.

We already have one example of what not supporting down-ticket candidates means.

This is the problem with Bernie’s revolution: How one down-ticket election in Wisconsin shows the flaw in his political movement.

A far-right judge was elected to Wisconsin’s Supreme Court — partly, it appears, with the help of Bernie voters. . .

“Justice Rebecca Bradley was elected Tuesday to a 10-year seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, defeating state Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg in a bitter, highly charged race.”. . .

Exit poll breakdowns from Tuesday show that just under 10 percent of Sanders voters cast a ballot for Bradley, while 11.5 percent did not vote in the judicial election at all. Among Clinton voters, just under 4 percent went for Bradley, while just over 4 percent did not vote for either judge at all. Some very rough back-of-the-envelope math based on vote totals says that yes, those votes would have swung the election to Kloppenburg.

Sanders’ people reply, why should we help them if they’re not helping us?

The DNC, headed by a former Clinton campaign co-chair, has needless to say been less than enthusiastic about Bernie’s candidacy. Most people understand by now that Debbie Wasserman Shultz has been improperly using her position to favor Hillary Clinton. There is the matter of the pathetically small number of debates, hidden during Saturday nights, holidays, and football games to lower viewership and protect Hillary. Two DNC co-chairs have already come out and said that they were not consulted about the schedule, meaning DWS lied to the public about consulting them. Then one of those co-chairs was disinvited from the debate as retribution.

More specifically, the people who want Bernie’s support refuse to support him.

Why should Sanders raise money to re-elect a group of people who don’t support him or his candidacy? Despite voting with the Democrats over 90% of the time and helping them secure major victories like Obamacare, Democratic Senators have repeatedly gone to the media to denounce him as a lightweight, an irritant, or a fickle ally (meanwhile, Republicans seem more willing to praise him).

And, finally, Sanders’ people say he will help the down-ticket candidates just by winning.

Bernie Sanders is the candidate most likely to win in the general election—as new polls continue to show—meaning he is the most likely to score down-ballot victories for Democrats. This makes sense, because there are several demographic factors giving him an advantage. He has the overwhelming support of independents, whereas Hillary has lukewarm support from them at best, giving him a huge general election advantage. He also has crossover appeal to Republicans, earning up to 25% of their support in his home state.

So, to recap, down-ticket Democrats are upset that they are not getting financial support from Bernie, even though they have overwhelmingly supported Hillary and spoke against him. However, if Bernie wins the nomination, his coattails will probably be big enough to help Dems all the way down the line.

As Bernie would say, “We’ll see.”

69 COMMENTS

  1. Did you ever consider the opposite? Bernie has in the past criticized the Democratic party. He has openly stated that he is using the Democratic Party to run for the media attention. He hasn’t helped the Democrats down ticket in any way. Hillary has been nearly a life long member of the party, and he just joined in order to run for president. Why should the Democratic party support him, then? Why should the Super Delegates go to him as he thinks they should? As far as bringing Democrats down ticket with him if he were to win the nomination, the story above showing just how much that counted in Wisconsin answers that question. He has also poisoned his supporters against the party, so why would anyone expect them to vote full Democratic Ticket after they vote for him. His rationale doesn’t make sense. If he wants help from Democratic colleagues, and Democrats down ticket, then support them. Playing the outsider game to win is going to get him nothing in the way of support in the White House, in fact it will get him more Republicans rather than less, meaning more obstruction, and less ability to pass what looks like fantasy to most people to begin with.

    • You mistake the establishment’s power. WE voted them bastards in. And now we’re gonna vote em out!

      • Theoretically, maybe. Practically, no.

        Look at how convoluted the system is. Superdelegates are only a tiny part of the system. Caucuses are vulnerable to peer pressure. And in primaries, we may vote “for” a candidate, but the “winner” can walk away with fewer delegates, and worst of all, the delegates can be dishonest.

        I’m in Michigan, which went for Trump, but you know who’s a “Trump delegate”? Ronna Romney. Yes, Romney. And she’s upfront about her treachery. She says she is ONLY voting for Trump because he got the most votes–but even then, ONLY on the first ballot.

        With friends like that, who needs enemies?

          • You’re assuming you could get all of the people to stop voting–and that the media would report that nobody voted.

            And, I assume, if nobody voted, incumbents would just stay in place.

            • With the lack of voter rights laws, many people are no longer voting. The media isn’t reporting on this and the politicians aren’t crying out for a change. I know the Republicans don’t care, e.g., what happened in Wisconsin but where is the revolutionary Bernie or the democratic conservative Hillary?

            • Maybe I’m not being specific enough. ‘Not voting’ for THEM terrifies them. People are starting to stand up. All Bernie did was unite them.

              And, now. We’ll vote for someone else.

            • What you’re overlooking is that most people are not like you. Many are satisfied with the status quo. If you don’t vote, they still will. it’s the same as your voting for the person you don’t want.

              Remember that only about ten percent of the voters are bothering with the primaries.

      • LOL. Bernie is as much a part of the establishment any anyone on earth. He has been in some part of government for the last 30 years. You Bernieacs are funny.

        • This thread is funny. Bernie’s being trashed for being part of the establishment AND for not supporting establishment candidates AND for not sufficiently bucking the system AND for trying to work within the system.

          • Sanders running for president as a Democrat just to be able to use the Democratic Party system, isn’t a genuine effort at trying to work within the system in my estimation. Bernie is an establishment guy, but not a Democratic Party establishment guy. He is pretending to be. Therein lies the confusion. You can’t use the structure of a system and completely reject it at the same time, and then expect that same structure to support you despite all that. His supporters don’t quite grasp that, nor do I think he does.

            • Bernie Sanders is by far the biggest middle finger to the establishment yet. How could he possibly be part of the establishment when he’s bee. Fighting AGAINST them his entire life?? Ya’ll need to learn read between the lines… Being IN congress doesn’t=EVIL!!

            • And fighting against the establishment does not equal being a President. Being IN Congress doesn’t necessarily mean you aren’t evil. Look at Hastert. And by the way…what a badge of honor to be the biggest middle finger to the establishment.

            • I’ve never seen someone twist my words so violently in my life. I NEVER said being in congress makes you ANY less likely to being corrupt. I SAID THE [email protected] OPPOSITE!

              All you “skeptics” run around claiming everything is corrupt. Yet, if you were a REAL skeptic, you’d know why. Hillary Clinton is actually corrupt. Her voting record and funding papers prove that. But you can’t sit there and claim Bernie Sanders is just ‘corrupt’ without any evidence.

              And, unlike you, I’ve DONE my research. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate to actively stand by what he has believed to be right by, and for the people. And I think that is worthy of a vote.

              So make baseless claimes all you like. But, NO ONE is going to take you seriously…

            • Dude! Wow! I’ve just questioned/built off your statements. I’ve not made any direct attacks against you or Senator Sanders. You made some generalized statements and I challenged those statements. I’m sorry you felt the need to have this knee/jerk reaction to my post. NOW YOU WANT TO BE MAD! Senator Sanders message is sounding something similar to Mr Trumps, “Let’s make America great again”. I honestly never hear anything good come from Senator Sanders. Temper tantrums (yelling, arms waving, face turning red), giving toddler responses to questions….is this Mr Trump or Senator Sanders? Anymore it’s hard to tell them apart.

            • For one, I thought you were taking a direct quote of mine and flipping it. Instead, you took a direct quote, and demonstrated how little you understood my point.You claim my statements were “generalized” when in fact, they were very specific.

              I specificaly stated that being a congressional member doesn’t automatically make you corrupt. A monkey could deduce that.

              But then there’s people like you running around saying things much like:
              “Bernie’s been in congress for 40+ years! Of course he’s corrupt!”
              If you posses the awareness to see corruption, but lack the cognitive integrity to separate who is, and isn’t, then you’re not worth treating seriously.

              Bernie’s record is by far what sets him apart from other congress members. And the entire point of my comment was to state this, but you were apparently unable to grasp that. Instead, you prabble on about how Bernie is corrupt, but can’t come up with a scrap of evidence. A sad scene indeed.

            • Wow! “Not worth treating seriously!” “You may need mental help!” “NO ONE is going to take you seriously”. Wow! Personal attacks are tactics that Trump Supporters have used from the beginning. It’s been hard for me to separate all the negative emotion from the a Trump and lately the Sanders camps. I honestly never hear anything good come from either candidate. Temper tantrums (yelling, arms waving, face turning red), giving toddler responses to questions….is this Mr Trump or Senator Sanders? Is the verbal attack from a Trump or a Sanders supporter, Anymore it’s hard to tell them apart. Which are you? Hard to tell, with you calling me, “… Not worth treating seriously” and ” need of mental help,” etc.,

            • Since I’m in need of mental help, I’ll move on and let your hatred spew forth. This is my last post.

            • Lee: I hope you only mean that is your last post on this thread. Your views are valued here.

              Remember, you can just stop replying to a critic and move on to another topic.

            • If his feelings are so soft that he can’t have a civil conversation without diluting others words then I don’t.

              He took the most vile parts of my comments and ignored the rest.

              To me, that says he didn’t have anything rational to say, and instead played the emotion card. Note how he just repeated himself about Trump and Sanders despite that I adressed that >~<. I don't even think he read it.

              And, the primaries aren't what we're concerned about, the Senate and rep seats are. And those aren't all that hard to follow. I wholeheartedly believe Bernie for pres or not, this is the last year those corrupt representatives impede progress with their lies.

            • Definitely. I just realized it was best to back off and let this person have the floor. It reminded of the over zealous rallies I’ve seen where folks spew hatred. I was getting trapped in that and wanted out. There was nothing the person said that I took personally. I intended to emphasis certain points, e.g., calling people names.

            • And if you can’t tell the difference between Trump and Bernie that you may need mental help. One speaks like a child, and the other has gone into complete detail on how he plans to fix this country. So no, they BOTH don’t just ‘complain’.

            • I am in agreement with the difficulty Lee has with telling Trump, Republican, and Bernie supporters apart. Seriously, half of you Sanders supporters sound just like republicans on these threads.

            • The difference between Bernie supporters and Trump supporters is that Bernie supporters attack with facts. While Trump supporters stand by their ‘gut’.

              Yes, I called ‘other guy’ names, but only after he refused to meet my demands for evidence. Instead, he rambled on about how similar he ‘felt’ Trump and Bernie were. A statement like that doesn’t deserve my attention, as whoever made it hasn’t looked deep enough into policy to understand the matter. But I broke it down anyway, and he threw a fit.

            • He chose to pick the most establishment method possible to fight against the establishment. Why not be an activist or do something other than sit in government for decades? He really didn’t get much done in the way of “fighting the establishment” while he was there. Name something that made a difference in his fight against the establishment while in Congress.

            • That’s what we call a red herring. First, we have to define “fighting against the establishment”. If your definition refers to one of Sanders’ biggest talking points, (money and corruption), then name one thing any activist has done to get money out of politics.

              Don’t you see the problem here? There’s nothing any ONE person can do alone to fix the system from his position. God forbid from OUTSIDE the system.

              And your definition also assumes that’s the only issue Bernie is measured by. I won’t be given homework from conspiracy theorists. It’s on the accusing party to prove corruption, not the other way around. Have fuuun~!;)

            • If Sanders didn’t run as a Democrat he’d split your party like no one ever has. Hell he might even have a better chance as a third party candidate. He has nearly 50% of the primaries now, as it is. That’s almost half of your Democrats voted for Sanders. You could lose a third of your votes. Since over 40% of the US are independents, the GOP would walk right over you. He’s doing you a favor.

            • Actually, there is a difference between caucuses and primaries. He has won very few actual primaries. At caucuses, most of those showing up are activists who don’t necessarily represent everyday ordinary voters, and are mostly in small states. Clinton wins the majority of the non caucus states, which are large states, as well as some of the caucuses. In caucuses, what happens to people who work during those hours, the disabled, the elderly, or anyone else who doesn’t happen to have those few hours open to attend a caucus? They are undemocratic in so many ways. The fact still remains that Sanders is using the Democratic party for its structure, to which he openly admits, and he complains mightily about the rules now that he is using it. Either play by the rules, and follow the agreement that you sign with that party to support down ticket candidates, stop complaining about super delegates when they have been around for nearly 25 years, or don’t, but don’t expect to use the party, and at the same time not follow its rules.

            • There is no agreement that you sign. You become a candidate by filing with the FEC. You choose a party just like anybody else, by registering for that party. There is no agreement.
              I know the difference between a caucus and a primary. I didn’t differentiate. As an independent he has no primaries or caucuses to worry about. Clinton would be unopposed in her quest and it would be the GOP vs her vs Sanders, who would still eat up at least a third of the Democrats, and perhaps half the independents. It wouldn’t be a pretty sight for the DNC.

            • That has nothing to do with running as a candidate. It’s a joint fundraising deal that he signed to try to get some recognition from the DNC, which he never got anyway. He’s still willing to do it, but joint being the keyword. Sanders, last I knew, hasn’t been invited to any joint fund raisers by any other DNC candidates. He doesn’t fundraise. He says, hey send me money and people do, to the tune of $27. His rallies are free and open to anybody. Clinton’s usually have a fee, sometimes as much as the full $2700 limit. There was the $33,000 photo op after George Clooney’s $353,000 per table fund raiser dinner for Clinton. These are JOINT. Meaning its Sanders fundraising for the DNC. Believe it or not, his fundraisers are him saying during rallies, or people, unpaid volunteers, on the phone saying we need money. I’ve sent him $27 quite a few times, and $10 a week.

              Anyway. I said goodnight and I gotta get this old arse to bed.

              BTW, Sanders has raised millions, with no help from the DNC at all. He gets no money from them either

            • I never claimed it did have to do with eligibility to run as a candidate. The fact remains that he signed it, and he hasn’t done anything so far, and it is an expected thing for top candidates to help out others in their party. I don’t know how you can call something that is legal corrupt, when the alternative to raising funds for most candidates is just losing to your opposition. I would like money out of the campaign process, too, and would in fact like the government, and the government only to fund campaigns, giving an equal amount to each candidate, but again, at least without the SCOTUS leaning our way, nothing is ever going to happen with campaign financing, either. A conservative court would just say any changes are unconstitutional. In the meantime, if there is no fundraising on a big scale in most instances,we might as well just hand over all the elections to republicans, and call it quits.

            • In addition, no he doesn’t have almost half of the voters. He is over two million behind votes behind Clinton in the number of voters, and that will be increasing shortly.

            • Bernie has been clear that he is “anti establishment”. Not only that, he now realizes he needs the same Super Delegates who are an integral part of the establishment that in every speech he refers to as corrupt. He says they are all corrupt because the receive campaign funds from big corporations etc. He is nothing but an ‘opportunists.’ I can’t speak for others but I can see right through him. My assessment of him is that he is like a Wolf in Sheep clothing. He will never get my vote or any of my family members. One final thought for all his supports to ask him, is for him to direct the people to the number of bills that he initiated that was passed in to law during his 30 plus years in public life that has benefited the people. He talks about the bills that Secretary Clinton for that he opposed, let him tell the nation how many he crafted. He is nothing but talk. We need an action person with a track record. In fact, those who do nothing can’t get it wrong because there is nothing to effect any change. Those who make changes are always subjected to criticism. Think about all this with an open mind.

            • What bills precisely has Clinton initiated and gotten passed in her 8 years as a Senator? Might you be reminded that the total number of bills actually passed through congress is somewhere around the 5-15% range, not to mention the fact that Sanders has cosponsored many bills and is known as the ammendment king.

  2. I need to see something more than a man waving his arms in the air, whining, yelling “revolution”. Telling Rachel Maddow, “we’ll see”, is a toddler’s response. It is not Presidential. I want to see action behind the words “revolution”. I want him to take a stand and actively support other candidates, e.g., Senators, Governors, etc. To actively support women and minorities in positions of authority no matter what office they may be qualified for. Actively campaign against voter I.D. Laws and how it skewed the Democratic vote in Wisconsin (as an example). Use his fundraising ability to help others. Just do something! Stop wasting time. His message is sounding something similar to Mr Trumps, “Let’s make America great again”. I honestly never hear anything good come from Senator Sanders. Temper tantrums (yelling, arms waving), toddler responses….is this Mr Trump or Senator Sanders?

    • If that’s all you see then you aren’t really watching. Sanders has spoken out about everything you mention, since the early 60s. Perhaps if you could get past the hand waving you might have heard that.

    • Lee Tomlinson, not as bad as the Clinton’s temper tantrums, their lies by omission and unethical behavior. I happen to contribute to down ticket candidates, but not Third Way Wall Street Reaganites. Besides the hill already made agreements through the DNC to fund campaigns in many states.

  3. Has anyone even bothered to realize that these are the same ones to are playing for wall street? There is good reason why he doesnt push to support people that are collecting money from outside sources, namely the ones that are already voting large brraks for corporations and rich that are already getting free rides..He has actually accepted the Democratic side of things and it shows. The socialist portion of his beliefs are exactly what both Dems and Repubs have been looking for. Both sides are tired of people getting free rides. There are so many large corps that pay zero and negative taxes. That forces the middle class to pick up the slack. Trump plans to extend those free rides even more. Hilary will have to extend them due to being owned by wall street. Bernie has paid for his campaign with small contributions for (The People ) …
    Ignore the lies that Trump and Hillary spew. They can be proven bogus…….

    • Merrimack-Webster Dictionary Simple Definition of revolution
      1. the usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one
      2. a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc.
      At this point I’m not talking about personal political views. I’m talking about the one thing I hear Senator Sanders says in almost every speech. Revolution! So is his plan to 1) or 2) or ? Whatever the plan, it will take working with people he doesn’t like or who don’t like him. Believe me if the time comes he needs a vote from someone in Congress to support one of his bills…..it won’t make a difference if that person took money from big banks or not. Just like it hasn’t when he sought out support as a Senator. I want change in our political process. I want Congress to do the job they were hired for. I want an easier election system. There are so many levels of change needed…..

    • want to see action behind the words “revolution”. I want him to take a stand and actively support other candidates, e.g., Senators, Governors, etc. To actively support women and minorities in positions of authority no matter what office they may be qualified for. Actively campaign against voter I.D. Laws and how it skewed the Democratic vote in Wisconsin (as an example). Use his fundraising ability to help others.

      • I’m tired of Wall Street….I understand the implication made but anyone that has been in Congress and/or hopes to be President is ” in bed with” Wall Street. Even Senator Sanders has in the past and may need to in the future ask for support on legislation from others who receive contributions from Wall Street. It’s legal and has been legal. Don’t tell me that Senator Warren or Senator Sanders has a master list of people they can garner support from based on a rating scale on how much “in bed” the person is with Wall Street. If they needed support for legislation, that persons Wall Street affiliation wasn’t discussed. LOL! I’d be happy to let them all keep their Future Wall Street paycheck if Congress would only do their job. I want a law passed that if Congress doesn’t meet their metric, no holidays or vacations are taken. When I had work….I stayed until it was finished even canceling personal vacations. I know the difference. I’m just me and they are THEM.

        • “I’d be happy to let them all keep their Future Wall Street paycheck if Congress would only do their job.”

          read that again… slowly. They are doing their job. They just don’t work for us.

  4. He is raising money for down ticket progressives. That’s just a very small percentage of the democratic party. He wants real progressives in government.

    • We want progressives in all sectors of the federal and state governments. I read where he announced 3 to support. I sent a donation to Tim Canova today. He is running against Medusa Debbie in FL. I will be checking out the others besides those that have endorsed Bernie. I’m disgusted with the Third Way Wall Street Reaganites that changed the party 35 years ago. I will back true progressives. Since the party no longer represents the little people, it’s time for a change to a party that will.

      • I got emails for Lucy Flores, Zephyr Teachout, and Pramila Jayapal. I was happy to outright donate or split my donations.

    • BS. She doesn’t have to buy people in her own party. Democratic candidates have always supported other Democratic candidates for decades. Are you new to the process or something? If Sanders thinks he is going to win the Presidency, then he damn well try to get other Democrats elected, or he will be dealing with a situation even worse than Obama has been dealing with, with the republican congress, and Democrats who don’t think much of supporting him since he could not have cared less about them. Seriously, how naive can you be?

      • Of course she has to buy people in her own party. That’s what supporting the down ballot is. Senators and congressmen, among others, are superdelegates. I support you, you support me. Especially since McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014. We’re talking about millions of dollars. That money comes with a price, and it isn’t just be nice to me. How naive can you be?

        By the way. I’m probably old enough to be your father and no, I’m not new.

        • If you were old enough to be my father, you would be in a grave. The fact is, that this is politics. In a Party, members support each other. That is the way it is. That is the way it has always been. That is the way it will always be. Our government is set up so that the party with the most winning candidates gets to set the agenda, gets to approve or disapprove SCOTUS nominees, gets to set the budget……. That is reality. If Bernie doesn’t want to play, and wants a Republican Congress, then fine. Just don’t come crying to the rest of us when it comes to be.

          • I agree. That’s politics. Clinton is sending money, the language of politics, down ballot. she isn’t doing it because she wants to be nice. She’s doing it because she expects those receiving it to cast their superdelegate vote for her. That’s how politics works, and that’s what Sanders wants to do away with when he says he wants money out of politics.

            • When did I say it had anything to do with being nice? She has been working for funding campaigns all over the country for decades. She and her husband both. What a bunch of whining about superdelegates this time around. They have been around since the early 80’s, and not a peep until Bernie came along and is losing. In 2008, the super delegates were with her, but when Obama won the most delegates, a lot of them switched to him, even though Clinton won all of the large states at the end of the primaries. There has never been an election since the SDs started that the Super Delegates didn’t go with the winner, and where the nominee was not supported by them. Bernie’s problem is that he is losing both with delegates, and with number of voters. He is literally over 2 million behind in number of voters. Does he want all the SDs to go to him in that situation? The convention hasn’t been held yet, and in fact no delegates at all have voted. I don’t really know what his gripe is at this stage.

            • Ok. Well, you have a good night. I’ll stick to my original contention that Clinton is not supporting the down ballot, she’s buying it. I’ll even go one further and state that she and Slick Willie have pretty much become the DNC over the last 25 years. Everybody who’s anybody in the DNC owes them. You, as a loyal Democrat, not unlike many of my loyal Democrat friends, might see nothing wrong with that. I call it influence peddling and buying votes. I call it corrupt, perhaps not illegal, but certainly not what I’d call ethical. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a Democrat, but very disgruntled with what I see the DNC has become.

              Check out Naomi Klein’s take on it all in the Nation. She expresses it better than I can.

              Anyway, sleep well!

            • We can agree to disagree. I really hope, however, that you will vote Democratic regardless of who the nominee is, and are not too pure to do that like many of Bernie’s supporters claim to be. I plan to vote Democratic for President and down ticket regardless of who it is. There are worse things in government than people you disagree with, and those are people who want to destroy you.

            • You do realize that many people who voted in the beginning of the primaries have now changed their mind and support Bernie, right?. That claim of “2 million+ votes” is irrelevant. The whole schedule this primary election was front loaded to get Hillary her votes before Bernie’s message got out, especially in the south. What he (and his supporters) want is for the states where he won either EVERY district or most districts, for those superdelegates to pledge to him.

          • By the way, there are several mechanisms by which the party with the least winning candidates can stop the party with the most winning candidates from setting agendas budgets etc. Very little is based on a simple majority. That’s why the GOP wasn’t able to push through their entire agenda when they held all three estates

            • There are more important instances, such as SCOTUS candidates. If Bernie doesn’t care about that sortof thing, then that’s okay for him, but a tragedy for the rest of us. Bernie is not going to be able to do anything about “Wall Street” or changing campaign funding as president without the SCOTUS being on his side. He should think about that.

            • I’m not following. If he’s the President, then he nominates the next justices… are you suggesting that Democrats would not support him because he didn’t pay them enough?

            • I’m suggesting that he needs to have a majority of Democrats in Congress, if he wants them to support him. Supporting campaigns of Democrats might help more of them into congress. To get the support of Democrats in the Senate, there have to actually be some.

  5. Bernie Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee. Sanders team seems to think they can get some of Hillary’s super delegates to abandon her for Bernie. Not likely. Sanders has criticizes the nomination process and has falsely accused the DNC and Clinton of campaign of breaking the rules; when, in fact, Sanders had signed the same agreement with the DNC but has failed to keep his end of the bargain. Clinton has kept her end of the bargain. Bernie Sanders isn’t interested in helping other Democrats win across the board, even though he would need their support, if elected, to fulfill any of his lofty promises. Sanders seems to think that the Democratic Party should bend to his every whim and become the Socialist Party, which is not going to happen.

  6. Actually there are down ticket candidates being funded by Sanders supporters… I am funding 6 myself none of them in my state. See this is the thing… with Debbie making the decisions who to fund we simply get more of the same old same old… so we are making direct donations…. DNC doesn’t get their cut so what….they didnt do a very good job of deciding who to fund in the midterms did they?

    • As I’ve watched this issue, I’ve wondered whether Trump and Cruz have been funding downticket, and if not, why that hasn’t been an issue on the GOP side.

Comments are closed.