Home | About | Donate

Weekend of Bernie's: Huge Maine Victory Caps Resurgency for Sanders


Weekend of Bernie's: Huge Maine Victory Caps Resurgency for Sanders

Jon Queally, staff writer

Record-breaking turnout fueled a dramatic day of voting and an emphatic victory for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the Maine caucus on Sunday, topping a weekend where the senator bested the former secretary of state in three out of four contests nationwide.


Thank you Common Dreams!
You are living up to your name.


Common Dreams writers and editors: please, when writing stories like these, only include actual pledged delegates in your counts — they're the only ones that matter, and they define the state of the race. Including "superdelegates" in the counts is a tactic, the purpose of which is to further the "narrative of inevitability". Don't buy into it. Every website lazily repeats these same numbers; I had to dig to find a delegate counter that even separates out the "superdelegates". (Ironically, it's on Bloomberg.) Subtract the number of unpledged delegates from both candidates' numbers, and all of a sudden you see the real dynamics of the race: close, and far from over. This is going to be a long season.


Bernie's wins in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Maine, VT, NH and Colorado - the Heartland and New England - show Sanders essential strength and the growing strength and resolve of his - our - coalition for political revolution! Bernie is building the coalition needed to win, growing stronger and stronger - we must also work overtime to convince doubters and the brainwashed what so many already see........

The following is all quoted from Yoav Litvin, but all relevant - we must keep the faith to effect the foundational change so critical to the future for us all.........

"A seemingly grouchy, disheveled, Jewish white Senator from Vermont, Sanders preaches socialism, revolution, health care for all, a $15 minimum wage, breaking up the big banks, free public education, criminal justice reform and a tax on Wall Street. But what is Sanders’ definition of “revolution”? Can his working within the two party duopoly lead to real change, let alone a progressive insurgency? His record and the current political landscape raise major questions regarding the true weight of his rhetoric.

As the battle commences the loyal Sandernistas encourage their unlikely candidate with a religious zeal. Clinton delivers a left hook, a jab to the chin, an uppercut right. In response Sanders uses evasive measures, dancing around, rarely hitting back.

The amused crowd eggs him on:

“Why are you giving credence to a corrupt, imperialist party?!”

“Are you in complete denial of the implicit rules of American politics?!”

“Can’t you see your efforts are futile? Don’t you understand it’s been tried before?!”

“You need to form a third party that will challenge the two-party dictatorship!”

“Jill Stein is a worthier candidate!”

“How can we take you seriously after you promised to endorse Clinton if she wins?!”

“Either hit her back or take the fall already!”

But the hardcore Sandernistas plow ahead sticking to their strategy. They pray for their man’s continued endurance while hoping for a miracle; for Hillary’s big arsenal of guns to jam. This could come in the form of an FBI investigation or some other unknown corruption, which would lead to the implosion of her entire campaign. Then, in this absolute long shot scenario, maybe just maybe, Sanders will rise untarnished and triumphant from a rigged fight.

However, if things go according to the grand plan, Sanders will lose. In this case, he would have served Clinton’s interests by effectively rounding up all the left-leaning Democrats (i.e. the “sheepdog”, as coined by Bruce Dixon of Black Agenda Report) for an all-too-familiar lesser of two evils general election of Clinton versus Trump.

Are the Sandernistas maintaining a form of collective delusion, denying and even serving the inevitable Clinton nomination? Are they perpetuating a reality of corporate tyranny, environmental catastrophe and imperialist hubris that will continue to claim innocent lives? Or is Sanders’ strategy the only one available within a seemingly rigged fight? Can he prevail as a savior within this surreal spectacle of train wrecks, circus clowns, bottom dwellers, corporate slaves and gladiators?

Sanders still presents the best possible hope for America. It is not much, but it is not delusional to carefully invest in that hope by embracing Sanders’ strategy within a seemingly rigged Democratic party. However, if Clinton prevails it is clear that the energy Sanders’ candidacy has created must be harnessed towards either a progressive take over of the Democratic party and/or the fortification of alternatives to the corrupt two party system."
-- Yoav Litvin


Very relevant and accurate comment, thanks John.......


Second that. In fact I wish they would edit this article now!


Just as arch-Conservatives funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers infiltrated the Republican party and through lobbyists, direct campaign funding, and the control of think tanks groomed messages preferential to the very rich... the Democratic Leadership Council, a consortium of Republican-lite power-hungry individuals took over the Democratic party.

Increasingly, and largely as a result of the buyout of the public's air waves (after Clinton signed on to deregulate mass media ownership and turn the new frontier of digital bandwidths over to the pre-existing broadcast megaliths) any candidate in search of office requires enormous sums in order to gain "face" time in mass media.

So the DLC began to show deference to Big Business in a manner that formerly was more exclusive to "the other side of the political aisle."

My point is that not all Dems. are sold out. And also, that it's far less the matter of poor morals (on the part of many candidates) than that of necessity given the systemic flaws of the existing system... where Big Money controls the game.

Both Sanders and Trump speak to the disaffected masses... those sick of the parade of two family dynasties being propped up under the illusion of political choice.

And Sanders' fiscal support IS a major miracle. People resonate with the sincerity of his message. It's widely understood that the crash of 2008 worked to foster greater financial rewards to the very maniacs that crashed the system. And too many people are 2-3 paychecks away from hunger and homelessness.

This is NOT a system that works for most persons.

Health "care" is an expensive nightmare with or without the fallaciously named Obama "care."

Jobs are becoming downsized, set up as temp. work, or lacking any meaningful benefits or protections.

The entire economy IS rigged, and its long-term integrity has about as much sustainability as do global ecosystems under the current fossil fuel burning model.

Mr. Sanders should win and would win in a fair fight. But the same elites who have infiltrated the Dem. party mirror those within the Republican upper echelon. Neither group wants the outlier candidates. Granted, their positions may be "night and day"; yet it is true that both Sanders and Trump speak to those who are fed up with the status quo.

The Trump followers, like their peers in Nazi Germany, confuse the rigged system with ONE scapegoat group making life unbearable. The Sanders' supporters are more enlightened and understand that the system has been set up for and about the very rich and it's time for Democracy and more equitable systems of distribution to return... as they did as a result of FDR's efforts to similarly equalize the playing field after the Great Depression hit the working class inordinately hard.

As Cookies says... Go, Bernie!!!!!

P.S. Yesterday I got a survey in the mail from the Democratic Party head honchos and the wording of the questions cracked me up. They basically set up the answers by the way the frames were set. But one asked whether the Republican party was corrupted by the Koch Brothers OR the Tea Party... as if the two weren't directly related!


Just went over to 538 to see the latest polling and noticed that all the ones they got wrong (the 3 primaries that Bernie won this weekend) are amazingly not included in their historical "predictions". So, they confidently keep saying that Hillary has a 99% chance to win each state and then just remove that state from the history when Bernie goes ahead and trounces her.

So far, Hillary has not won anything outside the deep south (mass and iowa were basically ties) and there are only 2 more of those states left, while Bernie has been winning everywhere else and there are a LOT of those states left.

This weekend could not have gone better - keeping my fingers crossed that Michigan feels the bern also and continues the trend.


Found this on the numbers from Bangor Daily News -

"full story on the Maine Democratic Party caucuses is now posted on our website. Party leaders say 46,000 people participated, which is a record. Sen. Bernie Sanders is the projected winner. We will continue to update that story with new results"

On to Michigan!


I have to agree with Big River here, and in fact insist that common dreams make a concerted effort to alter the meme. As we know from 2008, when Clinton's delegates went to Obama, superdelegates at this point are effectively meaningless.


As George Carlin said "They call it the 'American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it."


Oh for God's sake. Is a Common Dreams staff writer really willing to cite that phony "delegate count" that includes super delegates--and without even breaking the real numbers out or making any sort of informational comment on how super delegates function? That is an establishment strategy to make it look like Sanders is getting trounced, which is far from the truth. Super delegate votes are up for grabs until the moment of voting, and as the tide is turned toward Sanders, so should the super delegates turn toward him. Right now, the super delegate count is irrelevant to reality, except to show how many people in the Democratic establishment have been clueless in thinking that the "anointed one" would get a free pass to the nomination.


Hillary is the best politician in the US today. She is slipperier than "slick Willie". I hate politicians because they promote themselves over the interests of the people while using deceit to cover their personal ambition. Hillary is a moving target and she evades criticism well, but Bernie has integrity and he's a servant of the people - anyone who paid attention would quickly figure this out.


Revolution simply means: 'Turn over' or turning things 'upside-down'. You can do that with pancakes or with nations. In the latter case in means bringing the bottom to the surface or giving those hitherto suppressed the power. That is simply, what revolution means, in general and in Bernie's case. That can happen through uprising and force and bloodshed, which it eventually will, unless the pressure is released.

Bernie has time and again proclaimed, that he is seeking a "democratic revolution", which is by definition a pressure release action, which will at the end prevent something more forceful and destructive.
I do not see, what is still not clear about that.


You may want to check out Jane Mayer's book Dark Money.

"Why is America living in an age of profound economic inequality? Why, despite the desperate need to address climate change, have even modest environmental efforts been defeated again and again? Why have protections for employees been decimated? Why do hedge-fund billionaires pay a far lower tax rate than middle-class workers?
The conventional answer is that a popular uprising against “big government” led to the ascendancy of a broad-based conservative movement. But as Jane Mayer shows in this powerful, meticulously reported history, a network of exceedingly wealthy people with extreme libertarian views bankrolled a systematic, step-by-step plan to fundamentally alter the American political system.
The network has brought together some of the richest people on the planet. Their core beliefs—that taxes are a form of tyranny; that government oversight of business is an assault on freedom—are sincerely held. But these beliefs also advance their personal and corporate interests: Many of their companies have run afoul of federal pollution, worker safety, securities, and tax laws.
The chief figures in the network are Charles and David Koch, whose father made his fortune in part by building oil refineries in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany. The patriarch later was a founding member of the John Birch Society, whose politics were so radical it believed Dwight Eisenhower was a communist. The brothers were schooled in a political philosophy that asserted the only role of government is to provide security and to enforce property rights."



Actually "greed", the desire to possess, if constraint by morals, law and ethics, is also the driving force of all progress. Without it we would still be living in caves and would have never tamed the fire.
So let us not make greed a crime, but channel it into productive and generally beneficial streams.


From here on out I think the target for a Bernie victory is an average of 60% of the popular vote.

Bernie is on an upward curve where he's probably going to underperform in Michigan and overperform in California in June.

Bottom line, this one is really, really close, and it's probably coming to your state and/or to a state next to you, and if you can throw one more delegate in this proportional game, that's what counts.


Well...John...there's nothing "make believe" about the World Socialist Web Site. It is published by the International Committee of the Fourth International, an organization of Trotskyist Socialists that's been in business since 1953. The web site has been online since 1998, and was redesigned in 2008. It is the most widely accessed Socialist site online. Published in 19 different languages. It is the source for Trotskyist analysis and Socialist Equality Party agenda.

Your assertion that it is owned by "the ruling elite" is pure hogwash. If that's the type of comment you attempt to post there, it's small wonder you cannot make it through their strict moderation. (Something uncommon to most Disqus enabled sites.)


The numbers you saw were probably the numbers of delegates for each candidate to the state convention.


Please stop parroting the DNC strategy of inflating HRC delegate numbers with party hacks. You are better than that. The real numbers are remarkably close and fluid, and in past contests the DNC did NOT add in superdelegate counts during primary season.

Come on CommonDreams! Cut it out!