Question on the possibility of a Senator Sanders

[BayCityProgressive]

it now looks very probable that Bernie Sanders-an avowed socialist- will win the open Vermont senate seat. if this happens do you think it will create a more active socialist movement in the USA. Currently the Left int he USA is very small...last I heard the Democratic Socialists of America had about 6,000 members, Communist party USA had between 2,500-3,000, Socialist Party USA about 1,300 and then various other groups with 1,000 or less members. It would really send the right wingers into rabbies moe if the Left picke dup steam after a Sanders victory..which is why I am afraid something will "happen" to him before the election.

[beam me up scottie]

1. I love Bernie and voted for him every time.

But I don't think he would have been considered "electable" in many other states.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. I agree

and don't mean socialist senators will begin winning elections everywhere. I was thinking more mayors, city offices, maybe some congressional races in very liberal districts.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Vermont is very progressive.

And Bernie was the mayor of Burlington.
I would love to see that trend catch on.

[whalerider55]

3. i think it will...

encourage the grass roots. i've long believed that before you have a national strategy, you need a local one. that's my problem with the greens, with whom i have flirted for years.

all politics is local.

bernie is the proof.

whalerider

[rox63]

4. Although Bernie considers himself a socialist

He is not affiliated with any particular party. And I think that's a good thing. He doesn't have to answer to intra-party politics. It lets Bernie truly be Bernie, instead of having to tow any party line.

Go, Bernie!!! :yourock:

[rwheeler31]

5. Vermont is so special

I wish we could afford to live there.

[garybeck]

12. vermont is not that expensive.

it's cheap compared to many major cities. and once you get out of the Burlington area, everything is reasonable. the real problem is employment.

[Selatius]

6. You people keep forgetting Sanders has won even in conservative areas

It's his message of standing up for the working man which has made him very well received with voters of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. He is addressing issues both parties have failed to do, and that is why he is surging ahead.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Well, Vermont conservatives are not like other conservatives.

And New England Republicans are also vastly different than the other members of their party.

Just because he did it in Vermont doesn't mean it can be repeated elsewhere.

The title "socialist" is like the kiss of death in many areas.

[Selatius]

10. You seem to be ignoring one thing:

Sanders' campaigns are built almost exclusively on grassroots organization as well as campaigning on working class issues that many people can easily identify with. This is something many Democrats have forgotten to do and Republicans are loathe to address. Sanders has provided a blueprint to winning, in my opinion.

[beam me up scottie]

13. A blueprint to winning in Vermont, yes.

I doubt they'd even let him visit the state I live in now.

Can Dems learn from Bernie?

Sure.

But mainstreamers are not ready for anything associated with socialism.

Egad, how many of them are too scared to call themselves liberals ?

[Selatius]

17. True, but a person wouldn't have to call himself a "socialist"

Perception is reality in our world, and words are very powerful instruments in shaping the reality. A person, like Bernie Sanders, could indeed run as an independent and not call himself a "socialist" whenever he or she decides to stand up for the people who have been flattened by Bush's economic policies and his cronies on Capitol Hill. I guess what I want is somebody who is willing to fucking fight for the people.

If John Kerry ran a 50 state campaign (He all but left us Democrats here out in the heartland to fend for ourselves), ran on a strong economic populist platform that answers to the working people of this country (No, free trade is not liberalism, that's neoliberalism), and actually went out there and held town meetings with people all over the country like the world was about to end and hammered not on wedge issues but on pocketbook issues, he probably would've beaten Bush so badly that nobody could steal away the votes and make it look convincing.

[beam me up scottie]

18. I agree.

There's a reason why Howard and Bernie have such a loyal following.

Don't forget Jim Jeffords, he sacrificed almost everything to do what he thought was right.

My heart ached for him when his "friends" turned on him.

[Armstead]

20. You are absolutely correct Selatius

Bernie wins in Vermont for two basic reasons.

1)He is a very effective politician, who has used the traditional approach of "constituent service" in a very innovative way to foster both a grassroots progressive movement, and appeal to traditional voters in the old fashioned way.

2)He is basically a traditional LIBERAL DEMOCRAT in the old sense. His issues resonate with working class people. He may call himself a socialist, but his issues and positions are what were considered mainstream liberal not very long ago. The only reason he seems radical is because too many Democrats lost their way.

Vermont is not, on the whole, that much different than other states. In fact it has more in common with otehr rural Red states than with northeast states with large cities. There's no reason other politicians who stand for the same principles can't make it in any other states, although they'd have to be in synch with the specific characteristics of their regions.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Not in the bible belt and not in the south.

And Vermont is VERY different from most red states.

Vermonters don't want to buy their politicians or know what church they go to and how often or how they feel about two men kissing.

Consider Senator Catkiller Frist's home state if you will.

[Armstead]

25. I said they would have to adapt

Many Vermonters are just as conservative as anywhere else. The whole gay civil union issue was very divisive there.

Perhaps an avowed Jewish socialist might not make it somewhere else, but an equally strong economic progressive could make it in a Red state if they had the personal qualities to relate to the population.

It's all about the authenticity of a candidate and an ideology that resonates with people on the issues of power and money.

[beam me up scottie]

26. No, you don't get it.

I lived in Vermont during the civil union issue.

I have lived in many other states and I am telling you that most bible belt state voters don't care about the economy, or health care or their kids dying for a lie in Iraq.

They care about what the moral majority TELLS them to care about.

And if making sure that Adam and Steve can't file a joint tax return or adopt children to molest means their kids will live in abject poverty when they grow up, they're fine with that.

If little Bubba goes off to die at eighteen fighting for oil, it's worth it to make sure those baby killers can't pull full term babies from their mothers wombs and hack them to bits.

If their water supply causes cancer clusters because the local industries have been polluting it for decades, it's not really that important compared to putting god back into government and public schools.

Really.

I'm on a different planet.

[Rowdyboy]

9. Thats what we used to call "Democrats" when I was growing up.....

Bernie Sanders is a modern, slightly more liberal Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy. What was mainstream liberalism in 1969 is considered socialism today.

[garybeck]

11. his victory is not in the bag. Diebold counts our votes here in VT

it is going to be a nasty election.

[beam me up scottie]

14. I'm afraid you're right.

I thought it was ugly back in 2000, this may be much worse.

[garybeck]

15. I saw Bernie last month, he said

this is going to be the nastiest fight we've seen in vermont, period. there will be more spent on this election than any election in vermont history.

[beam me up scottie]

16. He will still run a clean campaign, no doubt.

I just hope it's enough.
Lots of outside interests have a stake in this one.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. I really want him to win, but I am so scared of Diebold :^( How did

you guys get snookered into letting them in there?!

------------------------------------------------------
URGENT yet easy! Hold the government accountable for Katrina's aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4736062

[Eric J in MN]

19. Have you thought of joining "Vermonters for Voting Integrity?"

http://www.geocities.com/vtvoting/

I don't know them directly, but "VotersUnite.org" gave them a link.

[Armstead]

21. It'll be dirty, but he is already basically a Senator

He's a Representative, but he's also the only Rep Vermont has, so it is a statewide office. He's a known commodity ion Vermont. Not everyone supports him, but he's got a solid and broad base of support.

Unless he's caught sleeping with a heifer, the Repukes will have an uphill battle, IMO.

[mountainvue]

22. Can someone explain the difference

between Socialist and Communist?

[beam me up scottie]

27. Sorry, just saw your post.

I am NOT the person to ask about this, but since no one else answered, I'll print from Wikipedia. (there is a lot more info at Wiki, these are just the first paragraphs):

Socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has changed with time. Although it is a politically loaded term, it remains strongly related to the establishment of an organized working class, created through either revolution or social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society. It has also, increasingly, become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist also refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed.

In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would succeed capitalism, and in some cases develop further into communism. Marxism and communism are both very specific branches of socialism. The two do not represent socialism as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
******************************************************************
Communism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Communism is a movement based on the principle of communal ownership of all property. It has been a major force in world politics since the early 20th century. Modern communism is associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, according to which the capitalist profit-based system of private ownership is replaced by a communist society in which the means of production are communally owned. This process, initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie (see Marxism), passes through a transitional period marked by the preparatory stage of socialism (see Leninism). Communism is now mainly understood to refer to the political, economic, and social theory of Marxist thinkers, or life in conditions of Communist party rule. In the late 19th century, Marxist theories motivated several social democratic parties in Europe, although their policies later developed along the lines of reforming capitalism rather than overthrowing it. The exception was the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party. One branch of this party, commonly known as the Bolsheviks and headed by Vladimir Lenin, succeeded in overthrowing the Tsar's regime in the 1917 Russian Revolution. In 1918 this party changed its named to the Communist Party, thus establishing the contemporary distinction between communism and socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism