Remember how the Berniebros decried the evil corruption of PACs, Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street? All while ignoring their idol's own funding from super PACs, Wall Street, Goldman-Sachs, mystery donors and Karl fucking Rove?
Well, they've got their very own 501(c)4 now, adorably called "Our Revolution." From some of my exchanges with Bernouts on Twitter, I'm not certain they understand that Our Revolution is, in fact. a PAC. But even if it is, it's totally ok, because Bernie is raising money for a cause he believes in, while Clinton is motivated by greed and corruption!
And remember how they threw dollar bills at Hillary Clinton, calling her a whore and a Wall Street shill? Now they are outraged, flummoxed, simply boiling over about Clinton launching her own 501(c)4.
Well, actually they're just pissed that Clinton's PAC isn't fundraising for them.
Yep, that's right — they want them some of that coporate-whore cash now!
Fuck your elitist corporate politics, mom and dad! We're moving into our own place above the garage, which will become the epicenter of a revolution unstained by the greed of western capitalism! Oh, hey, can we have some money for rent and weed?
Bernie's little revolution/lemonade stand claims credit for a number of wins during the 2016 election cycle:
[EDIT: An alert reader has pointed out that, while Kansas is listed in the graphic below, Our Revolution has zero wins in Kansas to date.]
"Hm," you say, "I want to know more." So you click on the little blue icons…only to find they're just pictures. Which candidates got what kind of support, beyond simply Bernie's blessing? Who ran against whom? NONE OF THIS IS CLICKABLE — you'll just have to take the revolution's word for it. Nice transparency!
So I've done some of the legwork here. You're welcome.
We'll start with the 2016 "victories":
(A few points of clarification: D = Democrat, R = Republican, L = Libertarian, NP = no party, MDFL = Minnesota Democratic Farmers' League, DP = Democrat-progressive. Melvin Willis in CA was the only one I found who seemed to identify solely as a progressive, so that's my guess.)
Y'know, I'm just a neoliberal corporate establishment shill, but I seem to remember Keith Ellision not winning the DNC chair. Yet there he is, as both a 2016 win and a 2017 loss:
Huh whut
Also, maybe you can help me figure this out: David Bowen is also a "win," despite already being seven years into his ten-year term? What's that? He was a Sanders superdelegate? Ah, ok then.
Among the rest of the candidates, 14 ran unopposed, and 20 were incumbents, with a proven ability to win without Bernie's help. These are all good, legitimate victories, and should be celebrated. They just don't add up to the kind of dramatic shakeup the "revolution" is claiming. In fact, what I'm seeing here is an encouraging surge in victories by — dare I say — Establishment Democrats.
Some of these wins are remarkable, like Adrian Fontes, who defeated a 30-year Republican incumbent. Yet Fontes also received plenty of support from the evil rotten crooked corrupt establishment DNC, as did Barragan, Tubbs and many, many others on this list. The only non-incumbent Berniecrat to win so far is Pramila Jayapal, who was already well on the road to victory (thanks to lots of big-money donations from liberal PACs) when Sanders showed up to stump for her in October 2016, when maybe he should've been campaigning for Clinton as if he meant it.
This is how the Brovolution inflates its numbers: Bernie endorses a candidate, candidate wins, and the revolution claims credit, despite having done little or nothing to actively support said candidate or work for a win.This is the same "Amendment king" hustle he's pulled in the Senate for 25 years, writ large: attach your name to someone else's hard work, and claim the glory as yours. Also I got Barack Obama elected because I endorsed him from my couch while finishing off a box of Franzia.
But hey, at least there's Tulsi Gabbard! She's a win for everyone, isn't she? Especially the alt-right.
So, if the revolution is really doing this under its own power, this pattern should hold in 2017, right? Let's see: 9 victories…
…and 27 losses. Including Heath Mello in Nebraska, who lost what should have been a very winnable race after he made the "colossal mistake" of having Sanders show up to endorse him for mayor of Omaha. Including Kimberly Ellis for California Democratic Party Chair, who refuses to concede to the winner, Eric Bauman.
And there is no mention of Tim Canova, who challenged Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in Florida and got hung out to dry by the very revolution that was supposed to help him. No mention of the Berniecrats who lost to Establishment Dems in primaries: Lucy Flores in Nevada, Tom Fiegen in Iowa, Bao Nguyen and Preston Picus in California (the latter of whom attempted to primary Nancy Pelosi), Kevin Stine in Oregon, Alex Law in New Jersey…
The 2016 victories might give the impression that the Brovolution is taking hold in California, if nowhere else. But Imelda Padilla lost her race for L.A. school board (along with Steve Zimmer, who IS listed on the website), so now the billionaire charter-lovers are in charge. The drug pricing bill, Prop 61, went down in flames. And none of the three Bernie-backed candidatesrunning for Xavier Becerra's seat in Congress made the runoff.
Even their losses are inflated: Russ Feingold, who is included among the 2017 endorsed candidates, has been a solid Dem since 1982 and served twelve years in the Senate before anyone outside Vermont had even heard of Bernie fucking Sanders.
***
B-b-b — but I heard he was the most popular poltician in America! Reddit and 4Chan said so!
To win an election — or at least to get the most votes, as Hillary Clinton did — you need support from all kinds and colors of people. You don't get these by dissing "identity politics" or women's rights or gun control, or allowing your base to swallow Russian propaganda. There are a lot of working-class white Democrats who saw right through Sanders's bullshit in 2016, and that number has increased. And ever since those 1,000 Russian bots disappeared immediately after election, A LOT of people who once supported him now see the old grifter for what he really is.
Turns out a political revolution is hard work, and they're already sinking back into their bean bag chairs, stoned and confused, crying about rigged primaries the way the alt-right still cries about the birth certificate. They're confused about the system works — kind of like they were confused about voter registration, data entry, and other things that are essential to running a campaign that isn't a complete shitshow. They think the fact that Bernie tended to win caucuses was representative of what would happen in a larger election — when in fact the opposite is true.
So I guess my question for Bernie's revolution is, "How in God's name do they win elections?"
Those were his own words about the Democratic party. He didn't say this about the party that has shut down the government, stolen a Supreme Court seat, gerrymandered the shit out of voting districts, purged hundreds of thousands of minority voters from the rolls, is determined to strip health care from millions and is at this very moment obstructing investigations into Trump's treason. He said it about Democrats.
Well, asshole, looks like we're doing a lot better than you. :)
__________________________________________________________________
This article appeared on Medium.
Dr. Val Perry Rendel, everyone's favorite foulmouthed rhetorician, is reputed to be a sock puppet, a GOP plant, a Russian operative and an Establishment shill. Her forthcoming book (Bust: Bernie's 30-Year Plan to Destroy the Democrats) needs a platform, so "like" her Author page on Facebook and watch her piss off Berniebots on the Twitter: @WorstPrezEver29 .
###
May 28 2017
Addendum. Quist who lost in Montana had Bernie support and active campaigning. Bernie barely supports Ossoff (refused to support him earlier) and won't campaign for him. Maybe we will win NC 6CD...Jon Ossoff?
Fight for That!
