Published on

Friday, March 25, 2016

by

Common Dreams

The Remarkable Bernie Sanders Journey That Will Overcome the Crowning of Clinton

by

RoseAnn DeMoro

'Enthusiasm for the Sanders campaign, the transformative program that he presents, which is really the program NNU and grassroots activists have long championed, is off the charts, and continuing to grow.' (Cartoon: Mike Konopacki/NNU)

It’s not over. Far from it. The economic and political establishment, which includes the Democratic National Committee (DNC), its Wall Street and corporate backers, and the major media, most of it now owned by a half dozen big corporations, have worked feverishly to turn the Democratic primary process into a coronation for Hillary Clinton.

Bottom line, they wanted to declare it over before actual voters could vote, but their carefully crafted strategy began to #FeelTheBern.

Here’s ten ways that establishment has sought to orchestrate the results, and why the race has a long ways to go.

1. Major media blackout

When Sanders began his campaign, as he often recounts, he had virtually no national name recognition (compared to Clinton’s universal recognition) and trailed her by 60 to 70 points in national polls.

The major media barely breathed his name, even when he began drawing crowds of 20,000 or more to summer rallies. Partly the result of the obsession with Trump, but also because the conglomerates controlling the media hardly wanted to promote such a fierce critic of Wall Street and the 1 percent.

In December the nightly news networks had allotted Trump 23 times more coverage than Sanders, on ABC alone 81 minutes to Trump for the year, compared to only 20 seconds for Sanders.

Even though while Sanders was holding extensive campaign events and press availabilities for months, Clinton was mostly avoiding public events and media avails, with the media largely ignoring its rebuff. (Even today you rarely see it pointed out that Clinton continues to dodge press conferences.)

2. They’re debating when?

Ironically unlike the Republican National Committee, the DNC manipulated its debate schedule to have the fewest number of debates at the worst times, intended to minimize voter viewing, including setting them on holiday weekends and the Saturday night before Christmas.

The goal was to restrict voter exposure and side-by-side comparison with other candidates who offered a significant alternative to Clinton, which served to keep name recognition of Sanders and his prescription for change artificially low.  Additional debates were only added much later after widespread condemnation of the DNC.  

3. Sanders booms, media works to marginalize

As the votes began coming in for Bernie, especially with his big win in New Hampshire, Clinton surrogates were given extra time as TV analysts to downplay the results, and the media narrative shifted.

The media paradigm typically is crafted inside the Washington Beltway and New York boardrooms, with other reporters compelled by their own editors or self-censorship to follow along, a practice also known as pack journalism.

A parade of big name liberal columnists, editorial writers, and TV analysts vilified Sanders’ visionary program, especially Medicare for all and free college tuition, while promoting Clinton’s “pragmatic” (lower your expectations) message that minimized the ongoing crisis felt by the millions left behind without health care, unemployed or stuck in low paying jobs, facing mountains of student debt, and all the other pervasive disparities Sanders described.

The next story line depicted Sanders as a narrow candidate because the majority of his support came from students, working class white voters, independents, and low to moderate income voters – largely ignoring that Clinton’s own base failed to include any of those groups who would be critical to winning a general election in November. Or that Clinton continues to fail to move support among those constituencies.

4. Vote rigging

After Sanders’ sweeping win in New Hampshire, the DNC went into hyper drive to break his momentum, starting in the next voting state Nevada.

Concerned Sanders would win Nevada, Sen. Harry Reid, the former Senate Majority Leader and most powerful elected official in Nevada, as it later emerged, arranged a plan with owners of Las Vegas casinos, where many caucuses were being held, and other employers, to ensure Clinton would win. The Nevada caucuses were then rigged with massive voting irregularities such as casino owners orchestrating which workers would be allowed to vote and, in clear intimidation, openly monitoring how they voted.

Vote tampering also occurred in other states, most recently in Arizona where on election day, polling locations were sharply cut forcing many voters to stand in line for up to five hours in the heat, with some leaving before casting a vote.

Voter suppression laws, rampant now across the country, disproportionately disenfranchise students and young voters, a group that has voted for Sanders by margins of up to 80 percent. The laws, passed by rightwing legislatures and governors, also target African-Americans and Latinos, which will ultimately harm any Democratic nominee in November.

5. The sexism canard

Desperate for attack lines against Sanders, the Clinton camp and her adherents have tried to paint him as a sexist, employing the same tactic of exaggerated small slights they used against Barack Obama in 2008 (remember “you’re likeable enough”). Add in the clumsy effort of Clinton surrogates Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright to mock and vilify young women who vote for Sanders.

Memo to Clinton and company. Bernie Sanders is not Donald Trump. He has a near perfect voting record on such issues as women’s reproductive rights and pay equity, and most of his proposals, especially Medicare for all, free college tuition, and expanding Social Security would disproportionately help women.

As the 90 percent female organization of nurses NNU has stated, we would love to break the glass ceiling, but this election is unprecedented in its opportunity to shatter the class ceiling.

6. Undemocratic primaries

Sanders has won the overwhelming majority of independent voters in “open” primaries or caucuses that allow them to vote.

Many Clinton surrogates have fulminated that any independent voters are allowed to participate in the Democratic Party nominating process.  As if only the two major parties should be allowed to decide who can run for office while a record 43 percent of U.S. voters are now independents in a corrupted system. Winning the independents’ votes is decisive in general elections, suggesting they should have a voice in determining who are the strongest candidates.

Because of the media blackout, many voters do not gain sufficient information about Sanders until shortly before election day. Early voting reflects lower name recognition for Sanders, benefiting Clinton and enabling her to win some close races.

 That contributes to the meme of her “inevitability,” but does not indicate she is the stronger candidate. In competitive states, Sanders has won a majority of those who voted on election day. When voters have more time to compare candidates based on sufficient information, they tend to choose Bernie.

7. Super delegates toe the line

Enormous pressure was brought to bear on the some 700 super delegates, mostly Democratic elected officials and other high-profile DNC members, to fall in line behind Clinton, facing intimidation or promises well honed by a Clinton machine that has had 25 years of practice.

An additional factor is the DNC decision to step up raking in cash from Wall Street and other corporate donors, and their implicit pledge to use those funds only for Democratic candidates who play ball by supporting Clinton.

These officials believe that the way to win elections is through big donor fundraising and shape shifting positions. The Sanders’ truth telling campaign, supported by millions of small donors engaged in a movement mobilization, is foreign in their eyes and threatening to their donor base.

The overwhelming tilt of super delegates for Clinton has fueled the narrative that Sanders can’t win, a line that the super delegates, who have a wider audience as members of Congress and often as supposedly neutral TV analysts, parrot relentlessly, along with the other Clinton/DNC/major media attacks.

The DNC created the undemocratic super delegate system to confer the power on the Democratic Party hierarchy to handpick their preference and blunt the ability of insurgents to win the nomination after outsiders George McGovern and Jimmy Carter shocked the party establishment by winning nominations in the 1970s.

8. Who’s most electable, who is not

It’s repeated over and over by her super delegates and the media – Clinton is the most electable candidate, and Democrats must rally behind her to beat Trump. The line has been so drummed into the narrative that many voters in exit polls cite it as the reason they voted for Clinton.

One problem, it’s not true. Virtually every poll for months has shown Sanders faring better against Trump, Cruz, and Kasich than Clinton, often by a wide margin, even as the media has already played out the attack lines Republicans would use against Sanders.

Additionally, the media largely ignores the salient point that Clinton has nearly the highest unfavorable ratings of any leading Democrat to run for President. By contrast, Sanders, widely praised by voters as the most honest and trustworthy candidate most have ever seen, has among the lowest unfavorable ratings, despite the media shock that anyone would trust, much less vote for, a democratic socialist.

And the media consistently downplays a key Sanders point, how the enthusiasm that he generates – evident in the more than 800,000 who have packed his campaign rallies – that is largely absent from Clinton’s campaign is critical for the nominee to win, as well as to help in down ballot races for Democrats.

9. The math, the math

The final defense for the Clinton camp and the major media, spinning out from the Eastern media centers to local news outlets, is that Clinton is too far ahead in delegates so the race is over.

To make the case even more heavy-handed, Clinton’s big margin among super delegates is added to the total of delegates won in primaries and caucuses. Even though unlike pledged delegates, super delegates are not committed to their position. They can flip at will, as they did from Clinton to Obama in 2008.

Next time you hear a pundit say, Sanders needs to win 60 percent of the remaining delegates, “and that just can’t happen,” consider his 80 percent margin in Idaho and Utah.

In state after state, especially that are not closed to independents, where Sanders has had time to campaign so voters get to know him, his platform, consistent record and unimpeachable character, and when the voting process is allowed to move forward without open rigging, Sanders does increasingly well.

The result often is wins, as in Michigan and recent caucus states, or effective ties in votes and delegates, as in Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.  Even in states where Clinton ultimately won because of voters who voted early by mail, Sanders increasingly won the majority of those who turn out on election day.

10. Forward to victory

Sanders himself says the path to his nomination is challenging, but still within range. States that were the biggest hurdle, in the South where the Clinton’s have a long history and Sanders was a complete unknown, are all past.

The remaining states, including the two largest, California and New York, which have a base more favorable to Sanders, can be won with lots of delegates to be awarded. National polls have already shown substantial movement toward Sanders the past two months, and his edge over Clinton in head to head matchups with the remaining Republicans continues to grow.

The challenge, of course, is not just to Clinton, but to the movement, including nurses and the activist army that has shattered all records in campaign contributions to Sanders and creates the overflow crowds at his rallies.

Enthusiasm for the Sanders campaign, the transformative program that he presents, which is really the program NNU and grassroots activists have long championed, is off the charts, and continuing to grow.

It’s on to California, and what promises to be an explosive convention in Philadelphia.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

RoseAnn DeMoro is executive director of the 185,000-member National Nurses United, the nation’s largest union and professional association of nurses, and a national vice president of the AFL-CIO. Follow Rose Ann DeMoro on Twitter:www.twitter.com/NationalNurses

al jazeera

US ELECTION 2016

Bernie Sanders wins Democrats Abroad primary

Socialist senator receives 69 percent of the vote among Americans living abroad, adding nine delegates to his total.

22 Mar 2016 09:27 GMT | US Election 2016, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, United States

People hold signs in support of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders [Jacquelyn Martin/AP]

Down but not out, Senator Bernie Sanders scored a big win in the Democrats Abroad global primary as the contest to become the party's candidate in November's US presidential election heats up.

"We are waging a strong campaign and plan to take it all the way to the Democratic National Convention this summer," Sanders said after his win on Monday.

The party said 34,570 American citizens living abroad in 38 countries cast votes by internet, mail, and in person from March 1 to 8.

Socialism, Bernie Sanders-style

Sanders received 69 percent of the vote to earn nine of the 13 delegates at stake. Hillary Clinton won 31 percent, picking up four delegates.

It is an important victory for Sanders, who was beaten by Clinton in five states last Tuesday.

Still, Sanders continues to trail Clinton by more than 300 delegates.

Clinton now has 1,163 delegates to Sanders' 844 based on primaries and caucuses.

In the US primary system, voters select delegates supporting their candidates in each state and then the delegates vote for the candidates in parties' national conventions.

When including superdelegates, or party leaders who can support any candidate, her lead is even bigger - 1,630 to Sanders' 870. It takes 2,383 delegates to win the nomination.

Halfway into the primary season, the Democratic race now moves to western states this week that Sanders is counting on winning to cut into Clinton's lead.

On Tuesday, Democrats vote in Arizona, Idaho and Utah, with 131 delegates up for grabs; on Saturday, Alaska, Hawaii and Washington hold caucuses with 142 delegates at stake.

Bernie Sanders surprises with Michigan primary win

Source: AP

ELECTION 2016

Why Bernie's Revolution Has Just Begun

With each primary victory—and each close call—Sanders has shown us our own strength.

By D.D. Guttenplan / The Nation

March 18, 2016

Photo Credit: Andrew Cline / Shutterstock

Well, we’ll always have Michigan….

A week after Bernie Sanders stunned pollsters with a victory that nobody predicted, lifting his campaign—and his supporters’ expectations—those hopes came crashing down to earth yesterday with defeats in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and North Carolina. Hillary Clinton’s late-breaking win in Missouri gives her a clean sweep on a night that was meant to mark the turn in the tide for Sanders, who poured time and money into Ohio, where Clinton took every big city on her way to a convincing 14-point victory, and Illinois, where Sanders hoped to profit from dissatisfaction with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a longtime Clinton ally. Though voters did punish Cook County prosecutor Anita Alvarez for her handling of the police shooting of Laquan McDonald, favoring challenger Kim Foxx by a margin of 2 to 1, Clinton carried Cook County by a comfortable 8 points.

Yes, it’s true that the rest of the primary calendar is more favorable to Sanders—who has won more states, garnered many more votes, and has a larger share of the delegates than any of the Republicans challenging Donald Trump. Whose presumptive grasp on his party’s nomination is denied almost daily by the same media who have been burying Sanders—when they could be bothered to write about him—from Iowa onward. We never said this was going to be easy—or a fair fight.

Hillary Clinton has always been the favored candidate of the party establishment. And unlike 2008, when the powerful Cook County portion of that establishment broke for Obama, a favorite son, this time the establishment remains unified in the face of the Sanders insurgency. Which would be reason enough for Sanders to carry on his fight all the way to Philadelphia, even if it really were mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination—a point we are still unlikely to reach before California votes on June 7. The strength of Sanders’s challenge, and the enthusiasm of his supporters, have already pulled Hillary Clinton off dead center on police violence, trade policy, access to education, and making the wealthy pay their share of taxes. 

As long as he stays in the race, and stays true to his beliefs, Sanders will keep winning those arguments, even if Clinton’s willingness to steal her opponent’s best ideas—and even some of his best lines—help her to win voters who will be crucial in defeating Trump in November. Turnout remains the Democrats’ Achilles’ heel: In Ohio, where Trump came second, he still got more votes than either Democrat. Clinton herself seems to get this, and yesterday declined to endorse calls for Sanders to drop out. Any other course would leave Trump in sole possession of the media for the next four months.

Speaking of the Donald, it also seems odd that while his impact on the Republican party is endlessly analyzed, almost nothing has been said about the way Trump’s likely nomination has influenced Democratic primary voters. My own guess is that fear of Trump probably carried Clinton over the line in Illinois and Missouri.

Keeping Clinton from reverting to a neoliberal default isn’t the only reason for Sanders to stay in the race—or the most important. As Sanders has always said, his aim is “a political revolution.” Winning the nomination would be nice, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to bring that about. Building a nationwide, durable network of mobilized, active supporters prepared to keep working for universal healthcare, a living wage, ending Wall Street welfare and America’s endless wars—including the drug wars—in numbers great enough to Occupy the Democratic Party and take it back from its corporate funders is absolutely crucial. So, too, is the difficult work of stitching together movements like #BlackLivesMatter, Fight for 15, immigrant rights, climate justice, and voting rights into a coalition prepared to march together, vote together, and transform our politics—and our country. Yet that is the task we face.

Are the odds against us? Of course. That’s what it means to live inside a rigged system. But remember where we were only a few months ago. With each primary victory—and each close call—Sanders shows us our own strength. With each packed rally we see the claim that socialism is un-American exposed as a lie, that a world where no one starves, healthcare is not rationed by wealth, and energy companies aren’t allowed to rape the earth for profit and leave the rest of us to take the consequences is not only possible but popular. 

Why cut off that momentum? Especially when, as Daniel Cantor of the Working Families Party points out, Sanders actually keeps getting stronger: “Bernie’s North Carolina performance was 15 points better than his South Carolina performance last month, and 5 points better than his Virginia performance two weeks ago. Meanwhile, the margin in Cook County, Illinois, is half of that in Wayne County, Michigan.”

So we fight on—to July, November, and beyond. For the nomination, so long as that remains a possibility. For our country—which may in November face as stark a choice as any in our lifetimes. And for our future, which is far too precious a prize to abandon for the sake of a few thousand votes.

PoliticallyDC

Political editorials for the progressively-minded.

Why Hillary Clinton Is Not Entitled to Bernie Sanders’ Supporters

Written by Dominica R. Convertino

Throughout the last few weeks, mainstream media outlets and political pundits alike have incessantly derided the many supporters of Bernie Sanders who claim that they will not be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, should she win the Democratic nomination. Pundits argue that if they effectively fail to rally behind Hillary, Bernie’s supporters will be to blame in November if Donald Trump is subsequently elected. Here is why the pundits are definitively wrong, and why this rhetoric is not only misleading, but incredibly offensive to the democratic process:

First, let me preface this argument by pointing out that this entire debate over whether or not Bernie’s supporters should throw their weight behind Clinton in the general election is (intentionally) misleading, as it maintains an underlying assumption that Hillary Clinton is the inevitable Democratic nominee; an assumption that we have been force-fed for years by both the media and operatives of the Democratic Party. Despite the incredible efforts to push this narrative, millions of Americans continue to outright-reject the “inevitability” of Hillary Clinton, and have been doing so long before Bernie Sanders (who is undoubtedly an inspiring alternative to Clinton) stepped into the race. By focusing on whether or not the supporters of Bernie Sanders would be willing to vote for Hillary Clinton as a potential-nominee not only sets the stage for the media to act as if the primary race has somehow been decided, but it forces progressive figures (who otherwise wholeheartedly support Bernie Sanders in the primary) to needlessly pledge their support to Hillary Clinton for the general election, effectively shifting the narrative.

Rather than falling victim to this purposefully-deceptive framing that has been perpetuated by both the media and the Clinton campaign, voters must remember: we are not currently in a general election; we are in a primary election. Additionally, we are not currently deciding between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump; we are currently deciding between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. So, it raises the question: why would any rational political observer believe that Bernie’s supporters should simultaneously pledge their hypothetical, future-support to the candidate who they are clearly trying to prevent?

Second, it is fallacious to assume that those who are claiming “Bernie or Bust” (i.e. those who refuse to rally behind Clinton if Bernie is not the nominee) are staunch Democrats to begin with. It is even more fallacious to believe that Hillary Clinton is somehow entitled to the support of Bernie’s voters, just by her very nature of running for President as a Democrat. Bernie is posing such a significant threat to Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment because of the fact that he is able to effectively accomplish something that Hillary Clinton has proven time and time again that she cannot: expanding the base of the Democratic Party.Throughout the last few months, it has become increasingly more clear that Bernie Sanders is succeeding precisely because he is bringing in newvoters to the Democratic Party’s primary elections, including (but certainly not limited to) first-time voters, Independents, moderate Republicans, Civil Libertarians, Green Party voters, and the politically disenfranchised. It is arguable that these Bernie supporters, who by many accounts do not consider themselves to be bogged down by a staunch alignment to our two-party system (a trend that is becoming increasingly-popular amongst Americans) would not have been Clinton supporters in the first place. In fact, we now know that many of Bernie’s supporters would have instead opted out of voting in their state’s primary elections, had it not been for his presence in the race, which explains the record-breaking voter-turnout in many of the primary elections won by Bernie thus far, and the devastatingly low voter-turnout in the states won by Hillary.

Third, to say that Bernie’s supporters have an obligation to vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election assumes that the two candidates are advocating for the same things, which is objectively false. While Hillary has made it clear that the objective of her potential presidency would be to maintain already-existing policies, she has also made it clear that she is unwilling to fight for significant change, in order to avoid a “contentious debate” with her Republican counterparts. Hillary Clinton, despite all of her recent efforts to emulate Bernie Sanders’ unwavering record of advocating for the people, cannot get past the fact that she is, in many ways, the poster child for the corrupt system which Bernie is arguing to reform. In recent years, the American people have caught on to the fact that it is no longer just the Republican Party that participates in a corrupt political and financial system, but that establishment, corporate-funded Democrats like Hillary Clinton and the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are in many ways just as culpable in terms of perpetuating the existing-system of political corruption.

Lastly, rather than arguing for Bernie’s wide-range of political supporters to compromise on the most fundamental, uniting idea that they stand for in this election (changing the corrupt political/campaign finance system that plagues this nation — and all of the subsequent issues that occur precisely because of that corrupt system) by asking them to pledge support to Hillary Clinton, perhaps we should instead flip the script and ask Hillary Clinton supporters to grant their support to arguably the best Democratic candidate in modern political history, Bernie Sanders. Out of all of the candidates on both sides in this election, Bernie Sanders is unequivocally considered the most liked, the most electable, the most ideologically-consistent, and the biggest advocate for the interests of the American people. So, perhaps we should ask ourselves: why is the Democratic Party trying so hard to elect a candidate who the American people have so consistently and so resoundingly rejected, at the expense of a Democratic candidate who the people so desperately want? If the Democratic party establishment is unwilling to listen to the will of their voters, then they deserve the uncertainty that a Clinton nomination brings, for Hillary Clinton’s immeasurable weaknesses as a presidential candidate are not the fault of Bernie Sanders’ supporters, but her own.

ELECTION 2016

The Incredibly Important Lesson Democrats Must Learn from the Bernie Sanders Campaign

A more progressive America is more possible than you believe.

By Chris Bowers / Daily Kos

February 1, 2016

Photo Credit: P. Barry

Every major poll analysis outfit--from Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight, to the Huffington Post's Pollster.com to Real Clear Politics--all show Hillary Clinton to be the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses Monday night. 

If she does indeed win, there will no doubt be a lot of pundits and wags who will use that victory as opportunity to dismiss the Bernie Sanders campaign as ineffective and historically unimportant. The record breaking rally sizes, the three million contributions, the volunteer-based distributed field campaign, the rise from single digits in the polls to become a serious contender--all of that will be, to some, just another George McGovern or Howard Dean-esque failure of liberal, grassroots campaigns that can shout loudly at rallies and in the comments but predictably flame out when real Americans start casting their ballots.

But no matter the outcome in Iowa, there is something that the Sanders campaign has already proven, and it is something that every single Democrat in the country needs to pay attention to and take to heart. 

The lesson is this: A more progressive America is more possible than you believe. And not just in some hypothetical future with demographics and legislative maps very different than those of the present day. A more progressive America than you believe is possible than you believe right now.

This lesson is especially important for those voters, analysts, political professionals and elected Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton primarily because they view her as more electable, and / or her policies as having a more realistic chance of passing into law. Those people who Paul Krugman described as "having an acute sense of the possible."

Bernie Sanders has shown is that more progressive outcomes are possible than you believe because you have left some of your own potential power on the table. Specifically, you have left the grassroots activist power that he has unleashed on the table. 

The three million donations, the record breaking rally sizes, the distributed field campaign with a volunteer backbone--even if that force proves insufficient to win Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination, to become President of the United States and to enact his proposed policies into law, it is a force strong enough to move the needle on the dial political possibility significantly to the left. But that is only if the Democratic and progressive advocacy elite stop leaving it on the table.

There has never been a contested Democratic presidential primary in history where elected Democrats and leaders of progressive advocacy campaigns have so unanimously thrown their support behind one candidate--a candidate who is actually well loved by Democrats, to boot. And yet even then, the combined power every elected Democrat and progressive advocacy organization has proven insufficient to prevent the bulk of the progressive grassroots from mounting a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders outflanked political possibility in this campaign. At the start of this campaign, no one at the elite levels of the Democratic Party and progressive advocacy ecosystem thought he could come this far--no one. He did it by tapping into a deep reservoir of grassroots progressive activism that almost everyone else has just flat out left on the table.

The Democratic Party and many progressive advocacy organizations rely on this activist base for small donations, but they don't really engage it. Communication to this activist base is typically outsourced to political consultancies who, more often than not, use superficial methods to turn lists of emails into television commercials. It works well enough to raise a decent amount of campaign cash, but it generates nowhere near the vast resources--both human and monetary--that Sanders has unlocked through his full-throated challenge to moneyed interests. 

The lesson of the Bernie Sanders campaign, win or lose, is that elected Democrats and progressive advocacy organizations are leaving political possibility on the table when they leave engagement with the progressive grassroots on the table. For decades it was widely believed that this was not the case, and that instead you could get more done as a Democrat by accommodating moneyed interests than by partnering with the grassroots left. Well, it is time for Democrats to recalculate.

The liberal-conservative gap in America has never been smaller, and it is only going to keep getting smaller. The liberal grassroots are better organized than ever through the larger than ever, even if no longer hip, constellation of digital-native organizations known as the netroots. They have reformed the filibuster, saved net neutrality, and have managed to give Bernie Sanders as much support you were able to give Hillary Clinton. Both you, and they, can do more when you work with them instead of just using them as an ATM. Together you can change what is politically possible, and in the process change the world.

Bernie Sanders is America’s spirit animal: Why this country is much more progressive than you think

Salon

Bernie Sanders is America’s spirit animal: Why this country is much more progressive than you think

It's true. Even as we descend into an election year defined by right-wing extremism, the numbers simply don't lie

ELIZA A. WEBB

TOPICS: BERNIE SANDERS, PROGRESSIVISM, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM, RESEARCH, POLLING, EDITOR'S PICKS,NEWS, POLITICS NEWS

(Credit: Reuters/Jim Young)

With the races for the presidential nominations heating up, and Iowa and New Hampshire just a stone’s throw away, it is time for Americans to come to terms with the undeniable truth: We are a country of equality-loving, regulation-supporting, bleeding-blue liberals.

Despite the political division in Washington, the far-right rancor being spewed by G.O.P. candidates, and the contention in the Democratic race over Wall Street, campaign finance reform, universal health care, and how to handle ISIS, poll after poll shows that the people of this country strongly support far-left progressive, liberal and democratic socialist ideas.

We just don’t like the linguistic packaging.

On wealth inequality, polls find that “a strong majority” of U.S. citizens believe the current situation is an urgent problem (including one-half of Republicans and two-thirds of independents), and think the current income and wealth distribution isunfair.

Despite Republican fear-mongering about big government, Americans “favor taxing the wealthy to expand aid to the poor,” and want Congress to rectify this inequalityby levying “heavy taxes on [the] rich” and increasing rates on people making over $1 million a year.

Americans also support steep progressive reform on Wall Street, with 50% to 58% of likely voters in favor of breaking up the big financial institutions.

Concerning the infusion of money in politics, Americans want campaign finance reform “with near unanimity,” and half would personally vote for a law establishing the government funding of federal campaigns. The support for reform is strong across party lines, with a prodigious 80% of Republicans, 84% of Independents, and 90% of Democrats believing money plays too large a role in the political process. Other polls show three in four Americans think there is too much money in politics and disagree with the concept of unregulated campaign finance.

Americans also support a substantial raise for low-wage workers, with 63% in favor of a $15 minimum wage by 2020, and 75% in favor of $12.50 by the same year. Other polls show that a majority of swing-state Republican voters support an increase, and69% of working people favor an increase to $15. Concerning workers’ rights, a majority also want to improve scheduling for chain-store and fast-food restaurant employees.

On the power of money and big business in general, 75% of Americans think large corporations have too much influence in the country. With top CEOs making 373 times what their workers do, Americans think the government should take action to narrow the gap: one-third of Republicans want to cap the income of corporate executives, and 59% of Americans support government restriction of CEO pay.

Likewise, there is very strong support for universal health care. Just over 50% of Americans support a single-payer system, and 65% of voters think every American should have access to quality healthcare. Most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have care, and put more faith in the government’s ability to hold down health-care costs than the private sector’s. 58% of Americans support a Medicare-for-all system, and a majority of Americans think the government should ensure coverage. A majority of voters in Republican states support Medicaid expansion as well, as do 56% of Virginians, including 55% of Republicans. A majority of Americans also support Social Security, with 65% of Americans in favor of its expansion.

On paid family and sick leave, four in five Americans support legislation requiring employers to offer paid parental leave (and even more support paid sick leave).Other polls have similar findings: 70% support paid sick leave, 67% support paid maternal leave, and 55% support paid paternity leave.

On ISIS, Americans oppose military action, with 65% of Americans against sending special forces to the Middle East, and 76% against sending conventional ground troops.

Other polls show that a majority of Americans support the regulation of CO2 as a pollutant, with over half of all parties — Democrats (80%), Republicans (54%), Independents (60%) — in agreement.

U.S. citizens also want better trade policies, with almost two-thirds favoring some form of trade restriction.

And on police reform, 86% of Americans think police should be required to use body cameras, and 87% are in favor of independent, outside investigations when police kill unarmed civilians.

Americans are hemorrhaging democratic socialism!

We are a people who idolize Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa — individuals who represent solidarity, kinship and empathy. We respect and agree with the teachings that call us to revolution; to fight for all our fellow human beings; to deeply, truly transform the injustice and corruption long imbedded in human society; to eliminate such a tragic non-necessity as poverty with the institution of fair pay, health care, equal education, decent working conditions and financial reform.

We are a people who lionize the 1776 revolution, who look up to and admire those who stood strong against inequality.

We support Robin Hood-like taxes for the rich and the de-infestation of money from politics. We want a hike in pay for working-class people and health care for all humans sick and injured. We are in favor of destroying the vise-like grip corporations and their owners wield over our economy, regulations on the ghastly melting fumes we are spraying on the protector-bubble surrounding our planet, and heavy oversight of the people bestowed with murderous power and the grave duty of protecting others.

This slew of ideas have come to be known as liberal, as progressive, as democratic socialist, when, in reality, they are simply what we teach our children: don’t be greedy, treat others as you want to be treated, and speak up when you see injustice.

Who cares what they’re called?

As poll after poll shows, we like them.

Americans concur: a compassionate, fair land where babies grow up in equality and human beings are treated with respect and dignity is the country for us.

To make our values fit our reality, all we have to do is vote.

Because, after all, as studies show, when people vote, liberals win.

Eliza Webb is a writer based in Detroit. Her work has appeared in the Hill, Truthout, CounterPunch, Alternet and the Michigan Journal of International Affairs. You can contact her at lizawebb@umich.edu and follow her on Twitter @ElizaAWebb.