The Bernie Sanders Campaign Just Got A Very Big Boost
The leader of one of the nation’s most powerful labor unions has joined the campaign of 2016 Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, and he said the reason he signed up with Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton can be boiled down to one issue: Trade.
Larry Cohen, outgoing president of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), said he has joined the Sanders campaign as an unpaid volunteer, and added that he wasn’t with Clinton because she has refused to say where she stands on granting fast-track trade authority on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. Cohen noted:
Click here for reuse options!I did everything I knew how to do to get Clinton to speak out on fast track, and she wouldn’t. We begged her to speak out. There was a million ways she could have done it….Why was she silent on this?…READ MORE at LiberalAmerica.org
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Andrew Bradford
Andrew Bradford is an author, academic, and political activist who lives in Atlanta. He is a Senior Writer for Liberal America and also has his own blog at deepleftfield.info
61 responses to The Bernie Sanders Campaign Just Got A Very Big Boost
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mike July 1st, 2015 at 13:38
Bernie puts a bit of a scare into the election. If he ever gets strong enough to beat Hillary, it could very well give the WH to the Repugs.
Hillary could beat anyone in the Konservative Klown Kar without breaking a sweat. I’m not so sure Bernie could pull it off. A bit of a paradox, I like Bernie a lot, but Hillary is a lock. She might be a lot less than I was hoping for, but she has the best chance of winning.
jasperjava July 1st, 2015 at 13:59
I feel much like you do, but I’m not worried that Bernie Sanders has enough steam to last long in the primaries. Cooler heads will prevail and Hillary Clinton will win easily.
Mike July 1st, 2015 at 14:09
Time will tell.
Dwendt44 July 1st, 2015 at 16:54
If he starts pushing Hillary toward the left a bit more, or a lot more, then his efforts are worth it. She’s been a moderate and we need a true liberal in there.
NW10 July 1st, 2015 at 14:24
As far as trade goes, it all depends on what is actually in the TPP, not what the pro left screams about what might be in it. Just like the Affordable Care Act, the TPP will have to be scored on balance, and it’s very much possible that those screaming the loudest against TPP could end up with egg on their faces.
Regarding Bernie Sanders’ campaign, it’s still a bad campaign that has zero intention of being competitive. They’re hyping polls months before the primaries, when few people are actually paying attention, and overstating Bernie Sanders’ actual impact. They’re also not doing much to get the man name recognition, which puts him at great odds against Hillary Clinton, who has name recognition for being in politics as long as she has. There’s also the possibility Martin O’Malley gains momentum running against both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, attacking them both for being Washington insiders and he’s a Washington outsider willing to make more efficient changes to the system. Still a ways to go, but the pragmatic side of me says Hillary Clinton most likely is the winner of the Democratic primaries.
Dwendt44 July 1st, 2015 at 16:52
The poll number, if anything, are tilted toward Hillary. If the main stream media ever starts reporting on the huge numbers attending his speeches, the name recognition will follow.
tracey marie July 1st, 2015 at 17:54
He will lose in the general election.
NW10 July 1st, 2015 at 18:30
5,000 people a speech isn’t really that newsworthy considering Obama was able to draw up to 100,000 at his rallies.
Robert M. Snyder July 1st, 2015 at 18:50
“it all depends on what is actually in the TPP”
Isn’t is disgusting that we don’t even know what’s in it?
NW10 July 1st, 2015 at 19:18
That’s the point, we don’t know what’s in it, so why complain about it until it’s finished?
Robert M. Snyder July 1st, 2015 at 21:01
I’m not complaining about the legislation. I’m complaining about the process used to craft it. What ever happened to free and open debate? What are they hiding? Apparently there is something in there that they don’t want us to see. That should concern you. Would you put this much trust in a Republican president?
NW10 July 2nd, 2015 at 07:01
ALL trade agreements are negotiated in secret. And the TPP isn’t “legislation,” you need to learn on what the TPP actually is.
CandideThirtythree July 2nd, 2015 at 11:30
Because ALL trade policies have been bad and only an idiot would think that there will ever be a good one.
arc99 July 1st, 2015 at 17:00
The first primaries will be in February 2016.
At this point, I think HRC will be the Democratic nominee.
But those who underestimate Sen. Sanders’ campaign are not paying attention. According to the FEC reports released this week, Mrs. Clinton raised almost $45million for her campaign.
Sen. Sanders has raised about $8million. That is a sizeable difference but I would wager that the Senator’s haul is about $8million more than many thought he would get.
A lot can happen in the next 10 months. But given that Sen. Sanders has raised more money at this point in his campaign than any Republican in the 2012 campaign other than Mitt Romney, to dismiss his campaign as some kind of hopelessly Quixotic fantasy doomed to failure is downright foolish.
We saw the results in 2014 when candidates tried to distance themselves from the liberalism of the President and his policies. It was an unmitigated disaster. I see the same thing taking shape here. I for one am not going to run away from the philosophical base of the Democratic party. One can be a realist about how to maximize the chances for victory in November 2016 and still be enthusiastic that Sen. Sanders is mounting a serious campaign to bring the progressive agenda into the debate.
Maybe he can’t win. But then again, maybe he can. And I cannot help but notice that most of the criticism of his campaign from the left is not about issues, but consists largely of petty sniping about why he is running.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/upshot/bernie-sanderss-early-online-haul-8-3-million.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
Mr. Sanders, the Vermont independent senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has raised at least $8.3 million online through June 17, according to Federal Election Commission records. His campaign won’t file its initial report until July 15, but filings by ActBlue, the online fund-raising committee that serves as a conduit for Democratic campaigns, show that Mr. Sanders, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, has brought in more money in May and the first half of June than any other Democratic candidate using ActBlue.
It’s likely that Mr. Sanders will report more than $9 million raised as of June 30, the deadline for midyear F.E.C. reports. That amount is larger than any Republican not named Mitt Romney raised in the first half of 2011.
johnnybizzoy July 1st, 2015 at 17:33
Forcing prospective employees to join labor unions is anti-freedom
tracey marie July 1st, 2015 at 17:52
Yeah yeah…you hate unions and love teabaggers, racism and right to fire for no reason laws. What a dumbass.
allison1050 July 1st, 2015 at 18:21
I hear you! As you may or may not know Nv. is 1 of those “right to work” states and I was laid off 4 yrs. ago 1 month before my 61st birthday, talk about a shock!
tracey marie July 1st, 2015 at 20:20
The teabaggers disgust me with their babble. They whine and whine if something they need is cut but never think about the other person .
allison1050 July 1st, 2015 at 21:18
It goes against their collective nature. I’ve had occasion to tell a few that they no more give 2 sh*ts about them than the man on the moon and nooo, all they’d be good for is to fetch and carry. ;)
johnnybizzoy July 1st, 2015 at 18:38
I believe very strongly in free association, and I do not believe it is in the interest of unions to force people to join them that do not want to.
OldLefty July 1st, 2015 at 19:05
They don’t.
johnnybizzoy July 1st, 2015 at 19:49
actually some of them do
OldLefty July 1st, 2015 at 20:37
You cannot be required to be a union member in any state.
If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance) are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some “members-only” benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.)
If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other “internal” union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.
A number of states have passed laws which either require, or authorize public employers and labor unions to negotiate agreements which require, all educators to either join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues as a condition of employment.
F_cons July 1st, 2015 at 19:29
And you should not support or obey laws until they help you and not support the military until they defend your home and not support taxes until they fight the fire at your house, pave the road that leads to your home, etc. There is such a thing as the better good
johnnybizzoy July 1st, 2015 at 19:36
I believe you mean, “greater good.” And I fail to see how forcing teachers or cops to pay a certain percentage of their earnings to a union that may or may not support their own political beliefs is the, “greater good.”
F_cons July 1st, 2015 at 19:43
And you believe unions are only supporting political beliefs, do you know the amazing unions have done for the average working people? this is copied from another post but is in no way the only benefits unions have given the non-rich, and that post was addressed to you
Mike –
Unions gave us…
Job safety (OSHA)
Insurance (Workman’s Comp)
Disability if injured
Healthcare
The 40 hour work week
Overtime
Lunch
Breaks every 5 hours
paid sick days
paid vacation days
Etc.
johnnybizzoy July 1st, 2015 at 20:03
I think those are all wonderful things. But I think people should be free to choose whether or not to join and pay dues to any institution. I have no problem with the free-association of workers, I have no problem with collective bargaining. What I have a problem with is compulsory payment of fees as a prerequisite to gaining employment. Period.
F_cons July 1st, 2015 at 20:09
So if you don’t have children, you don’t pay school taxes, if your house isn’t on fire, you don’t pay taxes for a fire department, if you aren’t in need right now , you don’t have to pay taxes for police, if a foreign country isn’t attacking you, no need to pay for the military, if you’re not sick, no need to support medical research with taxes … I could go on longer than you and your family, that will benefit from all that and social security, will exist
johnnybizzoy July 1st, 2015 at 20:34
Actually I feel very strongly that we should reduce property taxes substantially – down to no more than 3% if that – and that property taxes should not be the mechanism by which we fund education. Education should be de-regulated, and people who have children should pay for the service that they wish to have. People who don’t have children should not be forced to pay. That is my feeling on that subject.
—
When it comes to the military, I think most if not every single enemy we’ve faced in the last 100 years has been created by elements within our own government and banking sectors. These enemies are essentially created to provide a pre-text for government debt and perpetual servitude of the public’s money to private banking interests.
—
I take issue with how you have equated unions to the government. They are not a governmental entity, they are a Constitutional anomaly, perpetrated by the democratic party on only some workers in only some industries. I have no problem with the stated goals, or some of the historical contributions of unions, but once again, I do not believe I should have to pay them for services rendered. I have enjoyed most if not all of those benefits you listed previously, and I have never had to pay a union for them. They were simply offered to me to induce me to join a company and work for them. Anybody can negotiate anything they like in their labor contract. I encourage people to do this, I encourage unions to form – by all means organization of the proletariat is precisely what is missing in this day and age. But what I do not agree with is compulsory payment of fees in order to obtain a job. Period.
burqa July 1st, 2015 at 22:30
So you benefited from the work of others.
I’m not seeing much gratitude for what they have done for you and our society.
The rise of the labor movement came at a time of great tension, as the few wealthy amassed more of our national treasure and took advantage of workers. Communist theory held that the workers of the world would revolt violently, but labor unions gave them a new option that Marx never figured on.
When labor unions arose, we had a tiny wealthy class, a small middle class and most people were poor, and unions played a major role in the rise and expansion of the middle class.
I’m not a member of a union but I’m mighty grateful for what they have done. I work in construction. I think only mining is a more dangerous industry. We have all sorts of workplace safety rules that have prevented death and serious injury to countless men and women in the construction industry.
I like weekends.
There was no such thing before unions came along.
I like being paid time-and-a-half for overtime.
There was no such thing before unions came along. I don’t know if it was widespread or not, but have read about people in pre-union times not only having to work 6 days a week, but only being paid half wages on Saturday.
Unions haven’t been perfect, but overall they have played a positive role in making life better in America, and yes, higher wages and benefits cost money.
In your argument, you have not put two connected things together – payment of union dues with performance of the union.
If no one pays dues, how will the union function, hmmmm?
Don’t you think they deserve to be paid for their work?
johnnybizzoy July 2nd, 2015 at 19:47
I think people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be part of a union and pay dues to that union.
tracey marie July 1st, 2015 at 23:00
what will you cut to pay for schools, the military, free scooters for teabaggers, or just not have an educational system so everyone can be just like you…delusional and ignorant.
johnnybizzoy July 2nd, 2015 at 19:50
I would privatize and de-regulate education and make the parents pay for the services that they want to receive.
tracey marie July 2nd, 2015 at 19:57
basically you want an uneducated public where the wealthy get everything, what a dumbass idea
johnnybizzoy July 2nd, 2015 at 20:59
why can’t we expect people to procreate responsibly and pay their own way in life?
tracey marie July 2nd, 2015 at 21:12
I don’t know, lets ask bristol.
johnnybizzoy July 2nd, 2015 at 21:36
You don’t think Bristol makes enough money to provide for her children without creating a financial burden on the rest of us?
tracey marie July 2nd, 2015 at 22:04
bristol is indiscriminatly breeding with married men now, what a loser.
CandideThirtythree July 2nd, 2015 at 11:26
You are not even an American are you? You sound like you are a poster child for Fascism and tyranny.
burqa July 1st, 2015 at 22:10
Ok, you have surrendered on the topic at hand.
You saw the OP and immediately started waving the white flag.
Good grief, France put up more of a fight in 1940.
Teachers or cops pay that percentage of their pay because they are being paid far more than they would have without negotiations the unions engaged in.
Where unions have been strong, wages have tended to be higher as unionized industries attracted the better workers because they got them higher pay and better benefits.
We hear conservatives make certain claims about being for freedom, but this is one where they oppose the freedom of workers to organize and collectively bargain. This is just one of a number of freedoms that I have seen conservatives oppose.
As for me, I like freedom, the more the better.
tracey marie July 1st, 2015 at 20:18
free association, racist and seperatist talk. ALL teachers benefit when Unions fight for them, the teabaggers hate it when someone helps the little guy. Thank a Union for 40 hour work weeks, safety laws, child labor laws, overtime, fair wages, and so much more.
Mike July 1st, 2015 at 20:32
Exactly, Sovereign Citizen alert……
johnnybizzoy July 1st, 2015 at 20:40
I have no problem with “thanking” unions. And I have no problem with unions forming, and with people joining unions. I just think people should be free to opt-out if they so choose.
tracey marie July 1st, 2015 at 20:51
then they will receive no benefit if they do not join, no raises, nothing. Let’s get real here racist, teachers opted out and then sued when they did not receive the union raises.
Mike July 1st, 2015 at 18:08
Forcing prospective employees to join an organization that has spent decades fighting for the salary and benefits package that makes it a job you would want is what I call fair play.
Unions gave us…
Job safety (OSHA)
Insurance (Workman’s Comp)
Disability if injured
Healthcare
The 40 hour work week
Overtime
Lunch
Breaks every 5 hours
paid sick days
paid vacation days
Etc.
Just to name a few…tell me, which of these benefits are you willing to give up…???
johnnybizzoy July 1st, 2015 at 18:42
I do not agree with how unions create barriers to employment by either forcing prospective workers to join, or prohibiting them from obtaining employment. Why can’t unions simply function based on free-association?
OldLefty July 1st, 2015 at 19:05
I don’t think that happens much if at all, but there used to be nice arrangements whereby the employer agreed to hire only union while the union made sure the members were legal and qualified.
Now, in right to work states, the state tell both what kind of contract they may or may not enter.
Mike July 1st, 2015 at 20:25
Fine, you are free to search for employment elsewhere.
I started with the university I work for 40 years ago as a teaching asst. we had almost no benefits, pay was terrible, no sick days, and a crappy retirement and health plan.
Today, we have gotten the Regents to share some of the profits with us. Salaries are high, great health plan, retirement, and a fair vacation and sick day plan…that cost many years in dues and hard work, and now you want to walk into what I And others created and end the union….the very people we hired to make our job better than others (like yours)
Union jobs are the best paying jobs in country
johnnybizzoy July 1st, 2015 at 20:54
Actually the best paying jobs in the country are in the financial sector, and there are few if any unions there.
—
And if your union is so wonderful, why would you have a problem giving people a choice as to whether or not to join it?
Mike July 1st, 2015 at 21:35
Financial sector jobs aren’t hourly wage jobs, that’s the context we’re speaking in otherwise the best paying jobs would be in the political sector.
As an employee who spent years making the job what it is, wouldn’t you take issue with someone whose first act as an employee is to get rid of the very thing that made the job great…???
2nd time I’ve said this, are you playing dumb.
burqa July 1st, 2015 at 22:00
I think it is a mistake to allow a right-winger to hijack the conversation.
When we see them ducking the OP like this, what they are doing is proclaiming they can’t handle the subject at hand, which is even more reason to stay on topic, rather than let them change the topic to something they are more comfortable with.
allison1050 July 1st, 2015 at 18:22
But it’s alright for them to reap the benefits? Rethink that crap please.
Robert M. Snyder July 1st, 2015 at 18:47
By your reasoning, we should have a compulsory military draft, since we are all reaping the benefits of other people’s service. When and where did you serve?
F_cons July 1st, 2015 at 19:25
Yes, we should have a draft without the outs for the rich and connected. If the military serves the country, the country will serve, without exception. If the union serves them employees, the employees will support the union.
Robert M. Snyder July 1st, 2015 at 19:54
“If the union serves employees, the employees will support the union.”
And what about able-bodied welfare recipients who are not busy caring for children or other dependents? Can we also expect them to “support the union”, so to speak?
F_cons July 1st, 2015 at 19:57
English please, I don’t understand nonsence
Robert M. Snyder July 1st, 2015 at 20:20
Each year, the president give a State of the Union speech. I was using the word “union” in this sense, meaning “nation”.
You have espoused the principle that people should not get a free ride. In the case of labor unions, you don’t like the idea that some people might benefit from the hard work of others. You think that everyone should be expected to contribute to the union.
I am asking whether you would extend this principle to the union of fifty states, i.e. the USA. Isn’t it fair to expect able-bodied people to contribute if they are getting bennies?
allison1050 July 1st, 2015 at 21:27
Don’t talk to me about a military draft alright? How you are you really…2?
burqa July 1st, 2015 at 21:54
Check the OP.
This is about a labor leader who joined the Sanders campaign because he couldn’t get Hillary to say where she stood on granting fast-track trade authority on the TPP.
It’s right there in the OP.
No, really, it is.
Just scroll up.
burqa July 1st, 2015 at 21:52
This is about a labor leader who joined the Sanders campaign because he couldn’t get Hillary to say where she stood on granting fast-track trade authority on the TPP.
It’s right there in the OP.
No, really, it is.
Just scroll up.
CandideThirtythree July 2nd, 2015 at 11:19
No one is forcing you to join a union, no one wants to work with you anyway.