The Nation also endorsed Ssanders , I think, yesterday. As for the New York
Times, statement about Move On looking for an alternative to Clinton, I
believe that this was not a Move On initiative, but they do allow their
petitions to be used by other groups. Just Foreign Policy was urging people
to ask Warren to run at a time when Clinton seemed to have no competitors.
Also, Move on polled us and we voted for which nominee we wanted of the
three.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Hachey
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Move On Goes for Bernie Sanders
Hi all,
In case you haven't heard, Move On has elected to support Bernie Sanders.
Below my name, find a piece describing why Move On members like Sanders'
foreign policy positions better than those of Clinton. While I'm not
thrilled with his foreign policy stances, they are definitely better than
those of Clinton.
I'd feel a lot better if he opposed Obama's action in Libya and if he
committed to reducing our horrible drone strikes, but I guess if he did
that, his chances of victory would be reduced from slim to none.
Bob Hachey
MoveOn Members On Bernie Sanders: 'He'll Say No to Permanent War'
As Katrina vanden Heuvel has
written,
"The conventional wisdom is that [Hillary] Clinton benefits as voters grow
more concerned about national security and terrorism. She is the most
experienced
of all the candidates." But, vanden Heuvel argued, "as we have seen on
domestic issues, experience is a mixed blessing when fundamental judgments
have
been wrong and counterproductive."
It would appear that most members of MoveOn agree with vanden Heuvel on this
point.
On January 12, MoveOn
reported
that Bernie Sanders had won their endorsement, with more than 78 percent of
the vote in an online poll with record turnout. Hillary Clinton received
14.6
percent and Martin O'Malley received 0.9 percent, with 5.9 percent of votes
cast in favor of not endorsing.
One of the
top five reasons
given by MoveOn members for endorsing Sanders was "He'll say no to permanent
war." One MoveOn member wrote, "He was also right about Iraq and I prefer
his stance on foreign policy. I feel that he is concerned with getting our
country on track and not getting us in more wars." Another cited Sanders'
backing
for "peaceful solutions to prevent war, such as his support for the Iran
deal."
Reporting
on the top five reasons, Ilya Sheyman, Executive Director of MoveOn.org
Political Action, wrote:
Bernie Sanders has been a strong, consistent voice for the principle that
war should always be a last resort. He had the foresight to vote against
authorizing
the war in Iraq in 2002, was a strong supporter of the nuclear deal to
prevent war with Iran, and has been a voice of reason against escalation in
Syria
and other conflicts around the world.
A diplomacy-first foreign policy has long been one of MoveOn members' top
priorities, and Bernie has consistently stood with us against costly,
needless,
and unwise military escalation that puts our nation's security and values at
risk.
The New York Times
reported that
the MoveOn endorsement of Sanders was "not a surprise, given the time that
the group has spent trying to find someone who could be a strong challenger
to Mrs. Clinton from the left," referring to the earlier MoveOn effort to
draft Senator Elizabeth Warren to run. But the Times then noted: "where the
endorsement
could be helpful is in motivating volunteers and supporters to make calls
and rally voters on Mr. Sanders's behalf."
MoveOn
reports
that it has 43,000 members in Iowa. The
record turnout
in the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucus was 239,000; turnout in 2004 was 125,000.
A January 12 Quinnipiac University
poll
which generated headlines found that Sanders had the support of 49 percent
of "likely Democratic Caucus participants," with 44 percent for Clinton, 4
percent for O'Malley, 3 percent undecided. The previous December 15
Quinnipiac poll found Clinton at 51%, with 40 percent for Sanders. Ignoring
margin
of error and assuming that all those numbers were accurate, the headlines
were generated by the movement of roughly 8 percent of "likely Democratic
Caucus
participants," from Clinton to Sanders. If 2016 turnout is more like 2008
turnout, that's about 20,000 people. If 2016 turnout is more like 2004
turnout,
that's about 10,000 people. Supposing that the national MoveOn vote to
endorse Sanders was roughly reflective of MoveOn members in Iowa, there's
some 30,000
MoveOn members in Iowa who are already likely Sanders supporters and just
need a friendly and familiar voice to nudge them to show up. Thus, the
headline-generating
shift in the polls in Iowa is of the same order of magnitude as the number
of Sanders supporters in Iowa that MoveOn can plausibly move to show up to
the
caucuses.
This suggests that the result of the Iowa caucus could upend not only the
national media narrative about the candidates, but also the national media
narrative
about what Democratic voters are looking for from candidates on foreign
policy. If Sanders wins Iowa with MoveOn's support, then MoveOn could use
this
to credibly claim, as vanden Heuvel suggested, that on foreign policy
Democratic voter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/moveon-members-on-bernie_b_89742
46.html
