The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
Yes, she's publicizing the issue, as well as providing support, including sending a campaign aide that had previously been involved in the Michigan political scene to support the mayor.
This is a vast difference from Sanders saying "I will lower our incarceration rate so that we are no longer at the top", which is something that neither the President nor the federal government has the power to do on their own, as the vast majority of the issue is at the state level.
The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
So why does Clinton pivoting to something the president have control over get rationalized as "bully pitting" while Sander's is the wild eyed unicorn man of Burlington?
When did Clinton say she could actually "fix" flint?
The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
So why does Clinton pivoting to something the president have control over get rationalized as "bully pitting" while Sander's is the wild eyed unicorn man of Burlington?
Sanders promised to lower the prison population within four years to a huge degree.
Clinton has not, afaik, made any promises about Flint, just used her platform to keep it in the political consciousness.
If Sanders stopped at saying our prison population was too high nobody would really call it absurd.
There's a difference between saying "we should do this" and "i will do this".
Especially when you do not have the power to actually do whatever "this" is.
The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
A bully pulpit is a bully pulpit, whether it's about lead poisoning or wall street reform.
Either way, the candidates were making an issue of something they can't reasonably fix on their own from the office they're running for.
The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
A bully pulpit is a bully pulpit, whether it's about lead poisoning or wall street reform.
Either way, the candidates were making an issue of something they can't reasonably fix on their own from the office they're running for.
Funny. Because that sure as shit isn't how Bernie is selling his positions.
But that's fine. Keep up your false equivalencies.
The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
A bully pulpit is a bully pulpit, whether it's about lead poisoning or wall street reform.
Either way, the candidates were making an issue of something they can't reasonably fix on their own from the office they're running for.
There is a difference between saying there is a problem and promising to fix it.
So it's okay to run from Obama on some things, then, is what I'm getting out of this conversation.
Yes, I would assume that would be what you got out of the above conversation if all you were looking for was an attempt to make a pithy statement against a previous completely unrelated argument.
Or perhaps I am looking to nail down exactly when people think it is okay to criticize Obama's stances or get rid of something he put in place.
Please. Don't act like we are dumb. If that's what you actually cared about you would have actually said that instead of going for pure snark.
For the more general point it depends on the circumstances and also in many ways on who is even talking. Cause I ain't heard Clinton saying this is a great idea, only people in this thread, so the comparison you are making doesn't fit.
The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
A bully pulpit is a bully pulpit, whether it's about lead poisoning or wall street reform.
Either way, the candidates were making an issue of something they can't reasonably fix on their own from the office they're running for.
There is a difference between saying there is a problem and promising to fix it.
Yes, and that difference is called campaigning. Clinton is promising to do plenty of stuff that she can't reasonably do. She talked about getting Republicans on board with an Obamacare expansion last night, for shit's sake.
Campaign in poetry, govern in prose. Democrats have been shit at this for decades now, that's why we're losing.
The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
A bully pulpit is a bully pulpit, whether it's about lead poisoning or wall street reform.
Either way, the candidates were making an issue of something they can't reasonably fix on their own from the office they're running for.
There is a difference between saying there is a problem and promising to fix it.
Yes, and that difference is called campaigning. Clinton is promising to do plenty of stuff that she can't reasonably do. She talked about getting Republicans on board with an Obamacare expansion last night, for shit's sake.
Campaign in poetry, govern in prose. Democrats have been shit at this for decades now, that's why we're losing.
Yes, that is why we are losing. Not demographics, or baby boomers, or young people generally not voting ever, or gerrymandered districts, or the country just not being very liberal. or a million other things.
Democrats are only losing in lower offices because activists pump up expectations of radical immediate solutions and no o e wants to the the years and decades necessary to do it. It seems pretty shocking to pull out Sanders as path to party victory like all liberals have to do is clap louder
There is an enormous messaging gap in this country between right and left. It's been there since Reagan, basically.
First Democrats got scared of running as liberals because they thought the electorate would turn on them. Bill Clinton was a prime example of this, as was the DLC.
Then Democrats got scared of pitching big things because we needed to save our capital for opposing Republicans. But we only got to this point because we stopped presenting our vision, so theirs went unchallenged.
Sanders is now throwing big ideas into the public sphere, and the reaction is telling. I could give three shits if any of them are actionable in the course of the next presidential administration, because if we don't start pushing them they never will be. Period. If we're not the party of big, hopeful ideas then we're just the speedbump in front of the Republicans. We can only be that for so long before they completely wear us down.
So it's okay to run from Obama on some things, then, is what I'm getting out of this conversation.
Yes, I would assume that would be what you got out of the above conversation if all you were looking for was an attempt to make a pithy statement against a previous completely unrelated argument.
Or perhaps I am looking to nail down exactly when people think it is okay to criticize Obama's stances or get rid of something he put in place.
Please. Don't act like we are dumb. If that's what you actually cared about you would have actually said that instead of going for pure snark.
For the more general point it depends on the circumstances and also in many ways on who is even talking. Cause I ain't heard Clinton saying this is a great idea, only people in this thread, so the comparison you are making doesn't fit.
I don't know why I have to constantly repeat that I've been generous to Clinton and her supporters every time I make a point in Sanders' favor, but apparently I do.
I outlined my point in a far less pithy way to address that complaint but please do not address me as if I only exist in this thread to make disingenuous attacks against Clinton.
There is an enormous messaging gap in this country between right and left. It's been there since Reagan, basically.
First Democrats got scared of running as liberals because they thought the electorate would turn on them. Bill Clinton was a prime example of this, as was the DLC.
Then Democrats got scared of pitching big things because we needed to save our capital for opposing Republicans. But we only got to this point because we stopped presenting our vision, so theirs went unchallenged.
Sanders is now throwing big ideas into the public sphere, and the reaction is telling. I could give three shits if any of them are actionable in the course of the next presidential administration, because if we don't start pushing them they never will be. Period. If we're not the party of big, hopeful ideas then we're just the speedbump in front of the Republicans. We can only be that for so long before they completely wear us down.
Yes, it's just messaging.
Let's ignore how organized the right wing is, with a number of feeder systems that cultivate talent, starting from college, to local governments, to state, and then federal level. And that they have this system in place in all three branches of government (why do you think that the Federalist Society exists?) And let's ignore how disorganized the left is, and how what should be the entry level feeder positions are routinely closed off to many left leaning people, because they don't pay enough for anyone dependant on the salary to hold them.
There is an enormous messaging gap in this country between right and left. It's been there since Reagan, basically.
First Democrats got scared of running as liberals because they thought the electorate would turn on them. Bill Clinton was a prime example of this, as was the DLC.
Then Democrats got scared of pitching big things because we needed to save our capital for opposing Republicans. But we only got to this point because we stopped presenting our vision, so theirs went unchallenged.
Sanders is now throwing big ideas into the public sphere, and the reaction is telling. I could give three shits if any of them are actionable in the course of the next presidential administration, because if we don't start pushing them they never will be. Period. If we're not the party of big, hopeful ideas then we're just the speedbump in front of the Republicans. We can only be that for so long before they completely wear us down.
We're currently the party of looking into safe, practical changes because maybe we might get them and we wonder why there's no excitement and poor turnout.
Im not excited about this party, why should anyone be excited? What are we even offering people that gets them off thier asses?
There is an enormous messaging gap in this country between right and left. It's been there since Reagan, basically.
First Democrats got scared of running as liberals because they thought the electorate would turn on them. Bill Clinton was a prime example of this, as was the DLC.
Then Democrats got scared of pitching big things because we needed to save our capital for opposing Republicans. But we only got to this point because we stopped presenting our vision, so theirs went unchallenged.
Sanders is now throwing big ideas into the public sphere, and the reaction is telling. I could give three shits if any of them are actionable in the course of the next presidential administration, because if we don't start pushing them they never will be. Period. If we're not the party of big, hopeful ideas then we're just the speedbump in front of the Republicans. We can only be that for so long before they completely wear us down.
Yes, it's just messaging.
Let's ignore how organized the right wing is, with a number of feeder systems that cultivate talent, starting from college, to local governments, to state, and then federal level. And that they have this system in place in all three branches of government (why do you think that the Federalist Society exists?) And let's ignore how disorganized the left is, and how what should be the entry level feeder positions are routinely closed off to many left leaning people, because they don't pay enough for anyone dependant on the salary to hold them.
These two things are not mutually exclusive. The same forces that pushed us into quietly accepting a rightward slide are the ones that gutted what state and local outreach we had.
There is an enormous messaging gap in this country between right and left. It's been there since Reagan, basically.
First Democrats got scared of running as liberals because they thought the electorate would turn on them. Bill Clinton was a prime example of this, as was the DLC.
Then Democrats got scared of pitching big things because we needed to save our capital for opposing Republicans. But we only got to this point because we stopped presenting our vision, so theirs went unchallenged.
Sanders is now throwing big ideas into the public sphere, and the reaction is telling. I could give three shits if any of them are actionable in the course of the next presidential administration, because if we don't start pushing them they never will be. Period. If we're not the party of big, hopeful ideas then we're just the speedbump in front of the Republicans. We can only be that for so long before they completely wear us down.
Yes, it's just messaging.
Let's ignore how organized the right wing is, with a number of feeder systems that cultivate talent, starting from college, to local governments, to state, and then federal level. And that they have this system in place in all three branches of government (why do you think that the Federalist Society exists?) And let's ignore how disorganized the left is, and how what should be the entry level feeder positions are routinely closed off to many left leaning people, because they don't pay enough for anyone dependant on the salary to hold them.
There is basically no meaningful legislation coming out of this Congress. The next Congress isn't going to be any different, because without the ability to prevent the fillibuster (or the guts to kill it) everything we might want dies in the Senate. The entirety of the effect that the next president, assuming they're a Democrat, can have on the country is going to be through executive actions.
What of Clinton's campaign promises so far are actionable purely via unilateral executive action? Because everything else is a goddamn fairytale, and she knows it. That line about Republicans maybe seeing the light under a new Clinton administration was some serious weaksauce.
The point being, Sanders isn't the only one that's promising things that won't be delivered on. He's just the only one catching hell for it.
There is basically no meaningful legislation coming out of this Congress. The next Congress isn't going to be any different, because without the ability to prevent the fillibuster (or the guts to kill it) everything we might want dies in the Senate. The entirety of the effect that the next president, assuming they're a Democrat, can have on the country is going to be through executive actions.
What of Clinton's campaign promises so far are actionable purely via unilateral executive action? Because everything else is a goddamn fairytale, and she knows it. That line about Republicans maybe seeing the light under a new Clinton administration was some serious weaksauce.
The point being, Sanders isn't the only one that's promising things that won't be delivered on. He's just the only one catching hell for it.
So, because Bernie's "fairytale" is better (in your mind) that's it?
Because that's straight up bullshit in my mind. I'd prefer an achievable message in the right environment versus a fucking fairytale in the perfect environment, because one of those things might actually happen in the real world.
This, again, is not the compelling pro Bernie argument I think you think it is.
Edit
You know what? I'm tapping out. I'm not going to get jailed again for this shit.
There is basically no meaningful legislation coming out of this Congress. The next Congress isn't going to be any different, because without the ability to prevent the fillibuster (or the guts to kill it) everything we might want dies in the Senate. The entirety of the effect that the next president, assuming they're a Democrat, can have on the country is going to be through executive actions.
What of Clinton's campaign promises so far are actionable purely via unilateral executive action? Because everything else is a goddamn fairytale, and she knows it. That line about Republicans maybe seeing the light under a new Clinton administration was some serious weaksauce.
The point being, Sanders isn't the only one that's promising things that won't be delivered on. He's just the only one catching hell for it.
Sanders is also promising things that can't be delivered on, things where the numbers don't add up and things he'd be unlikely to pass even with a democratic controlled Congress.
Which is kinda a big distinction and was pointed out last page.
As I stated previously, I prefer big ideas that shift the conversation to little ones that feel safe and somehow more plausible.
I get that others feel differently, and I don't hold that against them. Primaries are where we have this conversation, after all.
I just want everyone to recognize that Clinton isn't going to have any more chance of delivering on her fairytales than Sanders would. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
The President is basically inconsequential in regards to getting any of this shit done and the real focus should be on farming up new talent at the lowest levels so they can then move up through the ranks and restore order ten to twenty years down the line. Neither Hillary nor Bernie have done anywhere near enough towards that nor have they admitted just how toothless their Presidency will be since they can't go back in time 20 years and shore up a big enough base to enable their proposed policies to be possible to pass. Hillary's not near as extreme as Bernie in that latter case but she's still pretty bad.
But as has been already mentioned multiple times, pointing out the effort to actually fix this will take decades isn't something disaffected liberal college students want to hear. They want to hear that you're going to give them a unicorn and since they're young and don't have any concept of attainability they'll believe you right up until the point where you fail and all you can actually deliver is a donkey. On the other hand conservative college students are happy to accept any scrap of progress and thus are happy to continue voting year after year and move into politics. Without incoming committed Democrats the party is doomed to slowly slide to the right.
Anyway, if Sanders wants to run away from Obama, that's absolutely fine. He needs to fully own it though and one thing he would need to do to fully own it is to not be replicating Obama by stating lofty goals and setting himself up for the exact same disappointment down the road that he's currently voicing against Obama. Also considering Obama wasn't up against the current entrenched Red Congress created by the 2010 gerrymandergeddon but instead had the potential of having access to a Senate supermajority if everything fell into place (it didn't, but I digress) it makes no sense that Bernie's plans are by far and away more unattainable than Obama's ever were.
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
A bully pulpit is a bully pulpit, whether it's about lead poisoning or wall street reform.
Either way, the candidates were making an issue of something they can't reasonably fix on their own from the office they're running for.
Funny. Because that sure as shit isn't how Bernie is selling his positions.
But that's fine. Keep up your false equivalencies.
Bernie keeps talking about revolutions and shit.
And I keep seeing far too many of his supporters buying that shit whole-sale without a hint of awareness of the hyperbole of it all.
This isn't to say there aren't Hillary supporters doing the same, but all I know is that one group of supporters is going to be a helluva lot more devastated if and when their candidate can't deliver, and it sure as hell isn't going to be Hillary's people.
And then I swear to you those same assholes who keep preaching at me (not here in this thread but in RL) and outright "Bernie-splainin" to me like I'm just some random goose off the street rather than the guy that has to explain every teensy nuance of the political process to them- those will be precisely the people that stay home during the midterms like they did for Obama because "Bernie didn't deliever, he's just like all the others maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!"
And, for what it's worth, so far Clinton is the only one I've seen recognize the role state and local governments play in the bigger picture. Such as at last night's debate when she was slamming on Scott Walker. Which I could be wrong on? But to the best of my knowledge that's the case.
The key for the next president, assuming a 2-termer, is in working with the DNC to make absolutely damn sure that the Dems have a good showing in 2018 and 2019 state house races, because that's where the next congressional districts are going to come from, and the only way the system will get un-fucked.
I do think the Senate's going to kill the filibuster the very next time that both chambers and the white house are occupied by the same party. Until then, it's a useful tool, but once it becomes a burden, the rules are going to be heavily revised to make it so that you actually have to do the filibuster to have it count, if not outright eliminate the practice.
In fantastyland, if Sanders wins and somehow we also win both houses with 60 in the senate, Sanders still wouldn't be able to pass any of his plans. Our very own Nancy Pelosi, she who would wield the gavel, has outright said they're all dead on arrival.
The country just isn't that liberal, especially so while the boomers are still alive.
As I stated previously, I prefer big ideas that shift the conversation to little ones that feel safe and somehow more plausible.
I get that others feel differently, and I don't hold that against them. Primaries are where we have this conversation, after all.
I just want everyone to recognize that Clinton isn't going to have any more chance of delivering on her fairytales than Sanders would. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
No, they aren't. Some policies are more plausible then others. For instance, Sanders proposed reducing of incarceration numbers is fantastical under almost any scenario.
You want people to recognize this fallacy as true only because it diminishes the criticism of Sanders you are hearing. But it is false.
As I stated previously, I prefer big ideas that shift the conversation to little ones that feel safe and somehow more plausible.
I get that others feel differently, and I don't hold that against them. Primaries are where we have this conversation, after all.
I just want everyone to recognize that Clinton isn't going to have any more chance of delivering on her fairytales than Sanders would. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
No, they aren't. Some policies are more plausible then others. For instance, Sanders proposed reducing of incarceration numbers is fantastical under almost any scenario.
You want people to recognize this fallacy as true only because it diminishes the criticism of Sanders you are hearing. But it is false.
Clinton is promising unrealistic things as well. This is not just a Sanders issue. Literally anything she pushes with a legislative component is dead in the water.
Pushing smaller stuff is just a campaign brand. It's still selling a product she can't realistically deliver on.
There is an enormous messaging gap in this country between right and left. It's been there since Reagan, basically.
First Democrats got scared of running as liberals because they thought the electorate would turn on them. Bill Clinton was a prime example of this, as was the DLC.
Then Democrats got scared of pitching big things because we needed to save our capital for opposing Republicans. But we only got to this point because we stopped presenting our vision, so theirs went unchallenged.
Sanders is now throwing big ideas into the public sphere, and the reaction is telling. I could give three shits if any of them are actionable in the course of the next presidential administration, because if we don't start pushing them they never will be. Period. If we're not the party of big, hopeful ideas then we're just the speedbump in front of the Republicans. We can only be that for so long before they completely wear us down.
Yes, it's just messaging.
Let's ignore how organized the right wing is, with a number of feeder systems that cultivate talent, starting from college, to local governments, to state, and then federal level. And that they have this system in place in all three branches of government (why do you think that the Federalist Society exists?) And let's ignore how disorganized the left is, and how what should be the entry level feeder positions are routinely closed off to many left leaning people, because they don't pay enough for anyone dependant on the salary to hold them.
This. The right doesn't win because they're ideological extremists.
I'd be pretty surprised if a former mayor wasn't aware of the need for local action.
I'm sure that he does, but he needs to talk about it. You can't talk up a political revolution and then not mention the necessary components of that revolution outside of 'elect me'. Clinton has done a good job saying that even if you don't vote for her in the primary, the important thing is that you vote. That sounds more revolutionary to me.
I'd be pretty surprised if a former mayor wasn't aware of the need for local action.
I'm sure that he does, but he needs to talk about it. You can't talk up a political revolution and then not mention the necessary components of that revolution outside of 'elect me'. Clinton has done a good job saying that even if you don't vote for her in the primary, the important thing is that you vote. That sounds more revolutionary to me.
This. I want ALL Democratic candidates trumpeting this shit loud and clear.
It doesn't matter who wins the nom, you vote for them, then you show up in the midterm and vote again.
I'd be pretty surprised if a former mayor wasn't aware of the need for local action.
I'm sure that he does, but he needs to talk about it. You can't talk up a political revolution and then not mention the necessary components of that revolution outside of 'elect me'. Clinton has done a good job saying that even if you don't vote for her in the primary, the important thing is that you vote. That sounds more revolutionary to me.
This. I want ALL Democratic candidates trumpeting this shit loud and clear.
It doesn't matter who wins the nom, you vote for them, then you show up in the midterm and vote again.
Seriously, voting is the revolution. The candidate is not.
Posts
Yes, she's publicizing the issue, as well as providing support, including sending a campaign aide that had previously been involved in the Michigan political scene to support the mayor.
This is a vast difference from Sanders saying "I will lower our incarceration rate so that we are no longer at the top", which is something that neither the President nor the federal government has the power to do on their own, as the vast majority of the issue is at the state level.
When did Clinton say she could actually "fix" flint?
I'll wait.
Sanders promised to lower the prison population within four years to a huge degree.
Clinton has not, afaik, made any promises about Flint, just used her platform to keep it in the political consciousness.
If Sanders stopped at saying our prison population was too high nobody would really call it absurd.
Especially when you do not have the power to actually do whatever "this" is.
A bully pulpit is a bully pulpit, whether it's about lead poisoning or wall street reform.
Either way, the candidates were making an issue of something they can't reasonably fix on their own from the office they're running for.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Funny. Because that sure as shit isn't how Bernie is selling his positions.
But that's fine. Keep up your false equivalencies.
There is a difference between saying there is a problem and promising to fix it.
Please. Don't act like we are dumb. If that's what you actually cared about you would have actually said that instead of going for pure snark.
For the more general point it depends on the circumstances and also in many ways on who is even talking. Cause I ain't heard Clinton saying this is a great idea, only people in this thread, so the comparison you are making doesn't fit.
Yes, and that difference is called campaigning. Clinton is promising to do plenty of stuff that she can't reasonably do. She talked about getting Republicans on board with an Obamacare expansion last night, for shit's sake.
Campaign in poetry, govern in prose. Democrats have been shit at this for decades now, that's why we're losing.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yes, that is why we are losing. Not demographics, or baby boomers, or young people generally not voting ever, or gerrymandered districts, or the country just not being very liberal. or a million other things.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
First Democrats got scared of running as liberals because they thought the electorate would turn on them. Bill Clinton was a prime example of this, as was the DLC.
Then Democrats got scared of pitching big things because we needed to save our capital for opposing Republicans. But we only got to this point because we stopped presenting our vision, so theirs went unchallenged.
Sanders is now throwing big ideas into the public sphere, and the reaction is telling. I could give three shits if any of them are actionable in the course of the next presidential administration, because if we don't start pushing them they never will be. Period. If we're not the party of big, hopeful ideas then we're just the speedbump in front of the Republicans. We can only be that for so long before they completely wear us down.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I don't know why I have to constantly repeat that I've been generous to Clinton and her supporters every time I make a point in Sanders' favor, but apparently I do.
I outlined my point in a far less pithy way to address that complaint but please do not address me as if I only exist in this thread to make disingenuous attacks against Clinton.
Yes, it's just messaging.
Let's ignore how organized the right wing is, with a number of feeder systems that cultivate talent, starting from college, to local governments, to state, and then federal level. And that they have this system in place in all three branches of government (why do you think that the Federalist Society exists?) And let's ignore how disorganized the left is, and how what should be the entry level feeder positions are routinely closed off to many left leaning people, because they don't pay enough for anyone dependant on the salary to hold them.
We're currently the party of looking into safe, practical changes because maybe we might get them and we wonder why there's no excitement and poor turnout.
Im not excited about this party, why should anyone be excited? What are we even offering people that gets them off thier asses?
These two things are not mutually exclusive. The same forces that pushed us into quietly accepting a rightward slide are the ones that gutted what state and local outreach we had.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I....don't think it can't be more than one thing?
There is basically no meaningful legislation coming out of this Congress. The next Congress isn't going to be any different, because without the ability to prevent the fillibuster (or the guts to kill it) everything we might want dies in the Senate. The entirety of the effect that the next president, assuming they're a Democrat, can have on the country is going to be through executive actions.
What of Clinton's campaign promises so far are actionable purely via unilateral executive action? Because everything else is a goddamn fairytale, and she knows it. That line about Republicans maybe seeing the light under a new Clinton administration was some serious weaksauce.
The point being, Sanders isn't the only one that's promising things that won't be delivered on. He's just the only one catching hell for it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
So, because Bernie's "fairytale" is better (in your mind) that's it?
Because that's straight up bullshit in my mind. I'd prefer an achievable message in the right environment versus a fucking fairytale in the perfect environment, because one of those things might actually happen in the real world.
This, again, is not the compelling pro Bernie argument I think you think it is.
Edit
You know what? I'm tapping out. I'm not going to get jailed again for this shit.
Let's just recognize that they're both fairytales, is all I'm asking.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sanders is also promising things that can't be delivered on, things where the numbers don't add up and things he'd be unlikely to pass even with a democratic controlled Congress.
Which is kinda a big distinction and was pointed out last page.
No, you are asking that we act like they are equivalently fantastical when they are not.
As I stated previously, I prefer big ideas that shift the conversation to little ones that feel safe and somehow more plausible.
I get that others feel differently, and I don't hold that against them. Primaries are where we have this conversation, after all.
I just want everyone to recognize that Clinton isn't going to have any more chance of delivering on her fairytales than Sanders would. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But as has been already mentioned multiple times, pointing out the effort to actually fix this will take decades isn't something disaffected liberal college students want to hear. They want to hear that you're going to give them a unicorn and since they're young and don't have any concept of attainability they'll believe you right up until the point where you fail and all you can actually deliver is a donkey. On the other hand conservative college students are happy to accept any scrap of progress and thus are happy to continue voting year after year and move into politics. Without incoming committed Democrats the party is doomed to slowly slide to the right.
Anyway, if Sanders wants to run away from Obama, that's absolutely fine. He needs to fully own it though and one thing he would need to do to fully own it is to not be replicating Obama by stating lofty goals and setting himself up for the exact same disappointment down the road that he's currently voicing against Obama. Also considering Obama wasn't up against the current entrenched Red Congress created by the 2010 gerrymandergeddon but instead had the potential of having access to a Senate supermajority if everything fell into place (it didn't, but I digress) it makes no sense that Bernie's plans are by far and away more unattainable than Obama's ever were.
Bernie keeps talking about revolutions and shit.
And I keep seeing far too many of his supporters buying that shit whole-sale without a hint of awareness of the hyperbole of it all.
This isn't to say there aren't Hillary supporters doing the same, but all I know is that one group of supporters is going to be a helluva lot more devastated if and when their candidate can't deliver, and it sure as hell isn't going to be Hillary's people.
And then I swear to you those same assholes who keep preaching at me (not here in this thread but in RL) and outright "Bernie-splainin" to me like I'm just some random goose off the street rather than the guy that has to explain every teensy nuance of the political process to them- those will be precisely the people that stay home during the midterms like they did for Obama because "Bernie didn't deliever, he's just like all the others maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!"
I do think the Senate's going to kill the filibuster the very next time that both chambers and the white house are occupied by the same party. Until then, it's a useful tool, but once it becomes a burden, the rules are going to be heavily revised to make it so that you actually have to do the filibuster to have it count, if not outright eliminate the practice.
The country just isn't that liberal, especially so while the boomers are still alive.
No, they aren't. Some policies are more plausible then others. For instance, Sanders proposed reducing of incarceration numbers is fantastical under almost any scenario.
You want people to recognize this fallacy as true only because it diminishes the criticism of Sanders you are hearing. But it is false.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Pushing smaller stuff is just a campaign brand. It's still selling a product she can't realistically deliver on.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This. The right doesn't win because they're ideological extremists.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm sure that he does, but he needs to talk about it. You can't talk up a political revolution and then not mention the necessary components of that revolution outside of 'elect me'. Clinton has done a good job saying that even if you don't vote for her in the primary, the important thing is that you vote. That sounds more revolutionary to me.
So he's just lying then
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
He's not making local action a centerpiece of his campaign for non local office.
Just like how Clinton isn't talking about state or local issues outside of Flint because it's not what's at issue.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This. I want ALL Democratic candidates trumpeting this shit loud and clear.
It doesn't matter who wins the nom, you vote for them, then you show up in the midterm and vote again.
Well I mean she did mention Scott Walker, so she's talking about state issues reasonably often lately.
Actually last night she specifically mentioned education and prison reform in the context of state and local politics.
Seriously, voting is the revolution. The candidate is not.
That was purely playing the crowd. And taking a jab at one of Sanders' big proposals.
She hasn't made any real statements about the role of the states in governing, because she'd have zero impact on that from the Presidency.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.