5 ms·
Remember the Occupy movement? They had no immediate demands. People thought it was pointless and the protestors copped a lot of criticism because of it. Almos
by tmnvix 9y ago
Remember the Occupy movement?
They had no immediate demands. People thought it was pointless and the protestors copped a lot of criticism because of it.
Almost ten years later Bernie Sanders rallied millions around a platform that was based on the idea of 'the one percent'. That wouldn't have happened if the idea hadn't already been made popular by the Occupy movement.
So yes, there is a point to protesting - even if you don't have any demands.
- Chinjut 9y agoNot even ten years later. Occupy was fall of 2011. Bernie Sanders ran in the primary from spring 2015 through spring/summer 2016 for the election of fall 2016. So, more like four to five years later.
- whyenot 9y agoWhile Bernie Sanders may have rallied some people, in the end he didn't actually end up accomplishing much of anything.
- graphememes 9y ago"It doesn't matter! he did it! he inspired people!" To do nothing.
- danharaj 9y agoThese sorts of things happen on long time scales. Let's see what the future holds.
- danso 9y agoThe people who backed him have gone on to participate in and influence state-level races: - https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2017/08/why-bernie-sanders-matters-so-much-minnesota-governors-race https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2017/08/why-bernie-... - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/bernie-sanders-ben-jealous-maryland-nina-turner/533541/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/bernie-... Sanders' backers are arguably pushing potential 2020 candidates farther to the left than had Sanders not become popular. I think single-payer as a litmus test could be somehing that impacts the race, and Sanders can get credit/blame for that: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/healthcare-congress-bernie-sanders-single-payer-obamacare/533595/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/healthc...
- georgeoliver 9y agoHis organization is funding and supporting local elections and initiatives across the country. If you accept that local politics is the foundation of national politics in the US, over time he may accomplish a great deal.
- paulsutter 9y agoReally? Bernie is the most popular politician in the country, and now billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and even the Ayn-Rand-reading Mark Cuban are promoting single payer healthcare. That's a big change.
- setr 9y ago>Bernie is the most popular politician in the country What? How did you watch him lose the democratic popular race and come To the conclusion he's the most popular?
- zachrose 9y agoThis is possible if he's more popular than Clinton among voters who did not vote in the Democratic primary: Republicans, independents, etc.
- setr 9y agoSure but its absurd to just assume "all non-votes were for bernie". Do the same for Christie and now he's the most popular politician in the country...
- taejo 9y agoThat's not an assumption, that's an answer to "how is it possible?". The answer to "how do we know that's the case?" is "polling": http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329404-poll-bernie-sanders-countrys-most-popular-active-politician http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329404-poll-bernie-sand...
- subsection1h 9y agohttp://lmgtfy.com/?t=n&q=Sanders+poll http://lmgtfy.com/?t=n&q=Sanders+poll
- paulsutter 9y agoThe latest Harvard-Harris poll, table 31 http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HHP-August-Wave_Topline-Memo_Total-Only_Registered-Voters.pdf http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HHP-...
- Afforess 9y agoYou say that like it's some damning put-down. Of course he didn't succeed; the elites usually win. That's why they are elite. It's no shame to have tried and lost.
- dguaraglia 9y agoExcept for the shift left that Clinton's platform made in the last couple mounts of the campaign? Bernie, even after losing, move the Overton window a couple notches. Unfortunately it was too late by then.
- gozur88 9y agoToo late? If Bernie's campaign managed to force Clinton to the left he's as responsible as anyone for Trump's presidency.
- BrainInAJar 9y agoThe Democratic Socialists of America went from 5,000 people to 25,000 people in a year.
- noobermin 9y agoTo be fair, that may more be a function of Trump more than Bernie.
- evincarofautumn 9y agoOn a small scale, this election seemed to make a significant fraction of people more able to identify with what they actually believe, rather than in terms of what they oppose. And I think that will have a lot of value, long term, for political discourse. Now, I can say with some confidence that I’m a left-wing libertarian. Before this shitshow, I don’t think I was really politically aware enough to be able to identify as anything but “anti-Republican”.
- gozur88 9y agoYes, and the National Socialists had similar growth in response. I'm not sure that was a good bargain.
- RobertoG 9y agoThat was not a bargain because one event don't cause the other but both events have a common cause. The common cause is that people is tired of the establishment. When this happen, some go one way and others the other way. It's not new, it's a historical pattern.
- Broken_Hippo 9y agoBullshit. He was able to have some success on his platform, which would have failed earilier. This most definitely helps with discussion later. He was able to influence a section of society enough to get into politics. He's still able to command attention when he speaks about something. He likely inspired some other folks and made it more OK to be a democratic socialist. (Unfortunately, this has worked on more detestable outlooks with this last election as well). The aftermath of him not winning the primary influenced the election itself. Some folks voted differently than they might have otherwise and third parties were a real topic of discussion, even though no one actually thought they would win. Heck, even being able to run for president - something most citizens couldn't pull off - is a win in itself. And he did it with that message and on one of the two major parties' tickets. Not every accomplishment involves a clear defined win or money.
- bendoernberg 9y agoFrame Alignment theory is the sociological term for what you're describing. After Occupy there were millions of people who were more prepared for a message about the corruption of elites and the need for ordinary people to reclaim democracy in a profound way. Beyond framing, Occupy also created social networks between activists, and those activists gained a lot of experience and developed specific skills. We saw an example of this network and these skills being deployed with Occupy Sandy, where those networks were used to out-organize FEMA and the Red Cross in areas of NJ after Hurricane Sandy. Occupy also popularized and tested various forms of social organization and social technologies. Thousands of people now know from experience the strengths and weaknesses of permanent encampments as a tactic, consensus decision making, the people's mic, etc. Mass R&D. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/nyregion/where-fema-fell-short-occupy-sandy-was-there.html?mcubz=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/nyregion/where-fema-fell-s...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sjg007 9y agoTrump also took on this message as well in his own way.
- oh_sigh 9y agoHow about frame alignment but in the opposite direction? I'm convinced the cruddiness of Occupy made more conservatives out of my somewhat liberal friends than any thing conservatives specifically did in the recent past.
- bradleyankrom 9y agoReally? Because there are a lot of cruddy things in the recent past to consider. I lived in New York during the Occupy rallies several years ago, I don't recall them having significant effects much beyond Wall Street (literally, the street/downtown train stops). There was a lot of coverage, but I didn't get the impression that people were losing their shit about it.
- 0xbear 9y ago>> Bernie Sanders rallied millions around a platform And then he got screwed by Hillary Clinton and her crony, Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, and accomplished absolutely nothing.
- kelnos 9y agoSure, but Sanders, and later Clinton, still lost... to a man so regressive and unfit most people believed he could never ever win. So while Occupy may have brought the concept of the "one percent" into the public consciousness, did anything actually change because of it? At this point I'm of the opinion that Trump will ironically cause much more (progressive) change simply because he makes people, even conservatives, angry enough that they swing the other way. If the Democrats regain control of Congress in 2018 I expect it to be in no small part because Trump is in office. I expect this to be easier than if someone like Kasich or Rubio was sitting in the Oval right now instead. Assuming I'm right, the major downside is that a lot of less privileged people will be in much worse situations for a while.
- bb611 9y agoIn fairness, Sanders polled significantly better vs Trump than Clinton did. How he would have done in a straight matchup is speculation, but at least based on polls before Clinton won the nomination, he had a better shot.
- dTal 9y ago>most people believed he could never ever win Given he won an election, this seems unlikely.
- skybrian 9y agoWhy? Voting for someone doesn't mean you think they will win. It seems that for many Republicans it was a happy surprise. (Going by post-election news reports from West Virginia.)
- kelnos 9y agoI suppose when I say "people" I mean pundits & pollsters, not American voters as a whole; my bad for not being specific. There were certainly some people in the media (Nate Silver, for one) who absolutely acknowledged that there was a strong chance Trump could win, but theirs was a minority opinion.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]