Home | About | Donate

MoveOn Endorses Sanders Following Massive Membership Vote


MoveOn Endorses Sanders Following Massive Membership Vote

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

Bernie Sanders has won the presidential endorsement of progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org by the largest margin in its history, the organization announced on Tuesday.

With a record-setting 78 percent of 340,665 votes cast by the group's members, MoveOn Political Action officially endorsed Sanders for president in 2016.


The results are striking.

Monied people have a lot in common with the Clintons, mainly, preserving their wealth.

300+ MILLION Americans have a lot in common with Sanders, mainly, sharing the wealth.

Big difference.


MoveOn added, regardless of who wins the nomination MoveOn will support the eventual nominee in the general election.

Boy am I glad I left MoveOn a long time ago! Because if HRC is nominated and is successful in throwing Bernie under the political bus, that means as a member of MoveOn I would be forced to endorse the Wall Street whore.

Too bad MoveOn doesn't tell the democratic party that unless they nominate Bernie they will not endorse HRC!


Surprising O'Malley only got 0.9% from MoveOn members given his policies are closer to those of Sanders than those of Clinton. Most notably, both Sanders and O'Malley want to reinstate Glass-Steagall to break up the big Wall Street banks whiereas Clinton does not support that.


I'm feeling the BERN! Go Bernie!!!


After I clicked for Bernie, I thought maybe I shouldn't have done so: a lukewarm MoveOn vote might show weakness. Gambled and looks like many others are part of the groundswell.

I've had my Bernie bumper sticker for 7 months now. Last week I spotted another-- one block away from me. This thing's getting bigger than a lot of my "practical" friends ever thought it would.


Bernie seems to win every type of online poll, whereas Clinton seems to generally do better in phone based polls (although even that seems to be changing as the latest poll in Iowa shows Sanders ahead by 5 points).

One difference between phone polls and online polls is that online polling is an act of will - people initiate the action on their own. Even if they get an email asking for their response, they choose to respond to the email. Phone polling is more of a passive activity. You answer the phone and respond to questions.

So I wonder if the difference between the results of online and phone polls is indicative of different levels of enthusiasm between Sanders and Clinton supporters. Sanders supporters choose to act in support of their candidate whereas Clinton supporters express support when queried. They don't go out of their way to support Clinton.

Locally, this seems to be the case. Public debate watch parties have Sanders banners, pamphlets, posters decorating the theater and the participants cheer louder when Sanders speaks. The local group of Sanders supporters has an active Facebook page and does roadside rallies. There's nothing like that among local Clinton supporters - the enthusiasm just isn't there.

So MSM, reliant on phone polls, may be doing another "Dewey Beats Truman". They may be missing what's actually going on.


Have any of the Unions that have endorsed Clinton, done so after a membership vote?


But they won't do that - as demonstrated over and over, like too many "prog" groups and voters and pols, it will again be party over principle, as you point out ...


I see it with my parents... they view mostly MSM/TV news, not online content, and if it weren't for me they'd only know about Clinton, and would support her with great frustration, maybe not even vote. As with online participation, there is simply more access to the argument, and as every single person I know who's gone down that search, they've become Sanders supporters. Not that he is any type of savior, but he is obviously (the difference) we've complained about not having for so long (and one who has a shot; sorry 3rd party people, which I am, if you don't see this as an excellent opportunity for people to embrace participation and eventually leave the 2 party system, then you're just and online complainer.) then biggest step next was for momentum, for all my friends who said "I like Bernie, but he can't win", well that changes as the herd grows. We are a simple animal. We are lazy - what is in front of our face (media), fear or knowledge? We are anxious- what is everyone else doing? it is up to us here, the ones who think about politics everyday, to be the welcomers to the previously-apathetic; not to spew years of pent up frustrations and theories and scare them off, but to show just how accessible it all is. Back on topic, I would add to ctrl_z that it is a matter of zombies (MSM watchers) and independents (self-searchers). We must remember that these are our brothers and sisters, they've just been numbed by fear and ignorance.


Hillary's support is paper thin, her attempt at preempting the nomination is failing, 89% of any group is extraordinary. I keep thinking of a column, by a young African American, on these pages during the Black Lives Matter incident, he said his mother didn't like Bernie's hair, of course not, Bernie is everyman/woman, no white horse ride in, no tall dark handsome, just an average looking older man, a true anti-hero, but interesting enough to start an unheard of trend in American politics, Bernie baby dress ups. Something extraordiary is happening. It's Bernie or bust, no alternative available, no going through the motions, to go through the motions.


Clinton and O’Malley favor overturning a law that shields gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits.

Clearly, Clinton and O'Malley see eye-to-eye on this subject and others. But O'Malley has near-zero name recognition and he childishly attacked the other two Dems in the last debate...which is why he has feeble support.

I just realized that I may have associated Clinton's name with a loser.


I would have guessed that not taking Wall Street bribes would be number one.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


I don't know how many members AOL has, or how many log onto that site, but in their news marquis they continually frame the election as Trump versus Clinton.

It's that kind of subliminal messaging that works to foreclose on any alternatives to a dismal status quo with a record that stinks to high heaven. No wonder so many are trying to jump ship out of Clinton or Bush dynastic camps.


I think the scarier possibility is that Moveon.Org will work to draw Bernie into the old fold.

However, apart from that, in an era of such overt violence directed AT women, I think it's insensitive and inappropriate to refer to Mrs. Clinton as "the Wall Street whore."

That kind of verbiage fosters sexism, whether recognized as such or not. (And I am certainly no Clinton fan.)


I like much in your comment, although frames are always wider than just 2 "sides" to any issue: zombies versus the self-awakened.

The main drag against Bernie's momentum apart from limited media coverage is the presumptive mantra repeated often: that Hillary is the presumptive candidate. The more that (some) people hear that Bernie can't win, the more they end up herded back into the lesser evilest camp and resonant mindset.

The polls ARE sending shock waves. Even in his native state, Sanders has drawn in supporters from both sides of the aisle.

While he is not showing his "inner David" in taking on the military-industrial Goliath, there's very little that his career and policy positions stand for (and have stood for) that don't benefit the majority of Americans.

That's why when he IS heard, he picks up lots of support.


Hillary must truly be desperate if she thinks she can make the case that Bernie is some type of Charlton Heston 'pry the gun from my cold dead hand' NRA cowboy.

And good Lord, can she be any more boring? You gotta pry your eyelids open with toothpicks to stay awake through one of her speeches full of cliches and canned stories. I know why the DNC has limited the number of debates and hid them on weekends, she is a major YAWN.

I really think Bernie's got this.


That's a very good question.

I looked up her first big endorsement of 1.6-million member AFSCME. Here's what their site says:

AFSCME’s 35-person International Executive Board voted overwhelmingly today to follow the guidance of members based on feedback collected over the past six months...

So no, those 1.6 million members didn't vote. There were sample polls, "feedback" (whatever that means), and since it happened in October 2015, we can likely dismiss it as a political move by that 35-person executive board.


Unfortunately, too true!