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.
So, in case Democrats win both houses of Congress, we should be sure to vote Hillary?
The likelihood of the antecedent is so low that it's hard to get excited about this as a reason to vote Hillary, even without allowing for the (obvious) possibility that a Sanders-in-office would treat his campaign points as ambitious goals rather than non-negotiable preconditions for any action whatsoever.
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.
Then why not vote for Ted Cruz? He's promising equally impossible legislature. If the content of the promises doesn't matter, what's the difference?
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.
Then why not vote for Ted Cruz? He's promising equally impossible legislature. If the content of the promises doesn't matter, what's the difference?
I've seen this a couple times in this thread. Just in case I missed something, Sen. Sanders hasn't joined the Democratic Party, officially, right?
Bernie has. Can't run as an independent in a Democratic primary. That's why when or if he becomes the nominee he'll get a D next to his name (and he has that already by being in this position.) There are no independents in the Democratic party, only Democrats.
I'd be pretty surprised if a former mayor wasn't aware of the need for local action.
So he's just lying then
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.
He has repeatedly promised that the US will not be #1 in incarceration by the end of his first term. If he pardoned every federal prisoner he'd be 1/3 of the way there. He has put forth no plan to achieve this and it's high doubtful any such plan exists. Either he knows this and is lying or he's clueless.
I'd be pretty surprised if a former mayor wasn't aware of the need for local action.
So he's just lying then
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.
He has repeatedly promised that the US will not be #1 in incarceration by the end of his first term. If he pardoned every federal prisoner he'd be 1/3 of the way there. He has put forth no plan to achieve this and it's high doubtful any such plan exists. Either he knows this and is lying or he's clueless.
See literally all of my previous statements regarding this campaign. On the last two pages, at least.
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.
Then why not vote for Ted Cruz? He's promising equally impossible legislature. If the content of the promises doesn't matter, what's the difference?
Seriously?
If a candidate can go ahead and promise whatever they want as long as it's not realistic, then how do you differentiate?
Sure, this is as extreme of a contrast as possible and Cruz likely holds beliefs personally that you find abhorrent. But if he won't ever be able to make them a reality then how is it different than Bernie promising the moon with no real way to deliver?
The point I'm driving at is that there is an actual difference between campaign promises, even if they are both unlikely to become law.
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.
Then why not vote for Ted Cruz? He's promising equally impossible legislature. If the content of the promises doesn't matter, what's the difference?
Seriously?
If a candidate can go ahead and promise whatever they want as long as it's not realistic, then how do you differentiate?
Sure, this is as extreme of a contrast as possible and Cruz likely holds beliefs personally that you find abhorrent. But if he won't ever be able to make them a reality then how is it different than Bernie promising the moon with no real way to deliver?
The point I'm driving at is that there is an actual difference between campaign promises, even if they are both unlikely to become law.
Well, I think the issue with this comparison is that Cruz is much more likely to get things through a Republican congress than either of the Democrats are. Although Cruz being Cruz I'm sure he would find a way to fudge that up.
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.
This is the least the left can do to become a political force, though. If Bernie was the man who was able to make the left a powerhouse in politics he'd be working on building a massive coalition and getting resources (alternative or otherwise) to take over the Democrats from within then when a liberal ran for president they'd have a bigger shot at becoming a front runner rather than a sideshow. Because right now we're weak as a political force.
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.
Then why not vote for Ted Cruz? He's promising equally impossible legislature. If the content of the promises doesn't matter, what's the difference?
Seriously?
If a candidate can go ahead and promise whatever they want as long as it's not realistic, then how do you differentiate?
Sure, this is as extreme of a contrast as possible and Cruz likely holds beliefs personally that you find abhorrent. But if he won't ever be able to make them a reality then how is it different than Bernie promising the moon with no real way to deliver?
The point I'm driving at is that there is an actual difference between campaign promises, even if they are both unlikely to become law.
I absolutely agree with the bolded. Which is why the implication that I should vote for Cruz was the height of goosery if you've read any of the things I've said in this thread.
I've already talked about how Sanders' campaign promises and statements are exactly the reason I'm supporting him. At length, quoted by half a dozen posters trying to string me up for them. You are not making any point that I have not already been making, here.
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.
So, in case Democrats win both houses of Congress, we should be sure to vote Hillary?
The likelihood of the antecedent is so low that it's hard to get excited about this as a reason to vote Hillary, even without allowing for the (obvious) possibility that a Sanders-in-office would treat his campaign points as ambitious goals rather than non-negotiable preconditions for any action whatsoever.
That's the best case scenario and with that at least we have more certainty the Democratic party on board, which is something tangible, rather than having a president with two parties who won't work with him completely.
The idea that the Democrats in congress won't work with Sanders is incredibly silly. They already work with the man, rather happily.
What was said, by Pelosi, was that the scope of Sanders' ideas was not tenable with the current and likely versions of congress. Not that she would be making an effort to cut him out of the process out of spite.
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.
Then why not vote for Ted Cruz? He's promising equally impossible legislature. If the content of the promises doesn't matter, what's the difference?
Seriously?
If a candidate can go ahead and promise whatever they want as long as it's not realistic, then how do you differentiate?
Sure, this is as extreme of a contrast as possible and Cruz likely holds beliefs personally that you find abhorrent. But if he won't ever be able to make them a reality then how is it different than Bernie promising the moon with no real way to deliver?
The point I'm driving at is that there is an actual difference between campaign promises, even if they are both unlikely to become law.
I absolutely agree with the bolded. Which is why the implication that I should vote for Cruz was the height of goosery if you've read any of the things I've said in this thread.
I've already talked about how Sanders' campaign promises and statements are exactly the reason I'm supporting him. At length, quoted by half a dozen posters trying to string me up for them. You are not making any point that I have not already been making, here.
I never, ever said you should vote for Cruz. It was just a rhetorical example.
The idea that the Democrats in congress won't work with Sanders is incredibly silly. They already work with the man, rather happily.
To a degree you're right, but they're not going to have a relationship like Hillary's, whose deeply entrenched in the group.
What was said, by Pelosi, was that the scope of Sanders' ideas was not tenable with the current and likely versions of congress. Not that she would be making an effort to cut him out of the process out of spite.
Spite, no, but there will be resistance from her. Not having the Speaker on the president's side like that is not a good place to start when you want to change the nation from the congress. Remember she has to sell this to other senators, who also may not be on board the Bernie train.
edit: Bernie will have to start a closer relationship and alliance with the congress Democrats right off the bat. This will take time, and he has to form ties deeper then he did as an independent - and there's no guarantee he'll be able to do it or if he does he can keep his base happy for a second term. Hillary will have this respect and loyalty immediately.
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.
Then why not vote for Ted Cruz? He's promising equally impossible legislature. If the content of the promises doesn't matter, what's the difference?
Seriously?
If a candidate can go ahead and promise whatever they want as long as it's not realistic, then how do you differentiate?
Sure, this is as extreme of a contrast as possible and Cruz likely holds beliefs personally that you find abhorrent. But if he won't ever be able to make them a reality then how is it different than Bernie promising the moon with no real way to deliver?
The point I'm driving at is that there is an actual difference between campaign promises, even if they are both unlikely to become law.
I absolutely agree with the bolded. Which is why the implication that I should vote for Cruz was the height of goosery if you've read any of the things I've said in this thread.
I've already talked about how Sanders' campaign promises and statements are exactly the reason I'm supporting him. At length, quoted by half a dozen posters trying to string me up for them. You are not making any point that I have not already been making, here.
I never, ever said you should vote for Cruz. It was just a rhetorical example.
Then, and I truly mean no offense by this, it was poorly chosen.
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.
It really is key. The Florida GOP just sent out an email saying that every Republican who stays home is a Democratic victory, and somehow I doubt the current DNC would send out an email like it.
I'd be pretty surprised if a former mayor wasn't aware of the need for local action.
So he's just lying then
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.
He has repeatedly promised that the US will not be #1 in incarceration by the end of his first term. If he pardoned every federal prisoner he'd be 1/3 of the way there. He has put forth no plan to achieve this and it's high doubtful any such plan exists. Either he knows this and is lying or he's clueless.
See literally all of my previous statements regarding this campaign. On the last two pages, at least.
Right its just BS.
You want Bernie to be this shining light of idealism. Big fluffy lies are still lies even if it "shifts the conversation."
The point of a campaign is not a campaign. Clinton's proposals are real. Maybe she really won't be able to do what Obama did in his last 6 years and get incremental change. But she's got a much better chance than Sanders and at least she's honest about it.
Its just bizarre to frame the cynical idea that nothing can get done on a Democratic agenda and therefore its OK for Sanders to blatantly lie in order to stir up false hopes because you think that will "shift the conversation."
Big flashy top down change is exciting, enticing, energizing and doomed if the foundational work hasn't been done. Sanders couldn't be arsed to campaign outside of Vermont until he was trying to be President. He has no legislative coalition to get anything passed. Even as a Presidential candidate he's making no effort to support the party or other lower ticket candidates.
Did George McGovern "change the conversation"? Would Obama have been able to get ACA without the 50 state strategy? And even that is an effort to build gradual change that will eventually achieve universal healthcare.
The Koch brothers have built up the conservative movement not through campaign ads, but thinktanks, state legislatures, county parties and an infrastructure behind their ideology. Reagan is nothing without the Moral Majority and coalitions he (and Republicans like Charles Colson) built up over decades from the Governor's seat in California. FDR required a deep bench of highly capable Administrators, Secretaries and a cooperative Congress even during a major crisis that gave him a near blank check.
There's no Big Liberal Jesus who is going get elected to the White House and fix everything. And if someone tries to be that and fails, its not going to move the country left or build up the infrastructure needed to compete on equal footing at the local, state and off year federal level. And that's especially true if Big Liberal Jesus creates a backlash by being a failure like Carter, or on the other side George W Bush.
This isn't a campaign for Leader of the Democratic Party. This is a campaign for President of the United States. When you begin with the presumption that Sanders will be ineffective but support him simply because his rhetoric is even less realistic or honest, especially with the essentially universally accepted fact that Clinton is better able to actually run the Executive Branch and especially foreign affairs much more competently, I think a reexamination is called for, either of your priorities or your candidate.
I don't expect a Sanders Presidency to be a "big liberal jesus" or "fix everything". And frankly the implication that I do is insulting given the statements I've made in this very thread. I'm just happy to have someone shouting progressive positions and values from a very large stage. And I'm also very happy with the response he's getting for it.
Primaries are the place where we state our positions within the party. Sanders reflects my position far better than Clinton. Thus I will be voting for Sanders. If Clinton isn't a good enough politician to survive a challenge from the progressive wing, she wouldn't hold up in the general anyway.
Edit: Part of the problem here, I think, is the idea that the Revolution can't start until after you've started the Revolution. Which really reads as paternalistic from this side of the table. People like me have been trying to push the party in the directions that Sanders is now succeeding at for decades. I, myself, have worked on half a dozen local progressive candidate's teams and helped secure fundraising for those same candidates along with state and federal office holders. This isn't some brand new shiny dream for me, this was my life from after college until I started teaching. I went door to freaking door to fund the 50 state strategy. Telling me the legwork hasn't been properly done by the progressive wing of the party is just wrong.
I don't expect a Sanders Presidency to be a "big liberal jesus" or "fix everything". And frankly the implication that I do is insulting given the statements I've made in this very thread. I'm just happy to have someone shouting progressive positions and values from a very large stage. And I'm also very happy with the response he's getting for it.
Primaries are the place where we state our positions within the party. Sanders reflects my position far better than Clinton. Thus I will be voting for Sanders. If Clinton isn't a good enough politician to survive a challenge from the progressive wing, she wouldn't hold up in the general anyway.
No primaries are where we pick our candidates. And picking a Presidential candidate not for his potential Presidency or even maximizing the expected value from the general election (weighing general election strength vs difference with Republican Presidency) but because it gives ideas you agree with a big megaphone is IMO fundamentally wrong headed.
I don't expect a Sanders Presidency to be a "big liberal jesus" or "fix everything". And frankly the implication that I do is insulting given the statements I've made in this very thread. I'm just happy to have someone shouting progressive positions and values from a very large stage. And I'm also very happy with the response he's getting for it.
Primaries are the place where we state our positions within the party. Sanders reflects my position far better than Clinton. Thus I will be voting for Sanders. If Clinton isn't a good enough politician to survive a challenge from the progressive wing, she wouldn't hold up in the general anyway.
No primaries are where we pick our candidates. And picking a Presidential candidate not for his potential Presidency or even maximizing the expected value from the general election (weighing general election strength vs difference with Republican Presidency) but because it gives ideas you agree with a big megaphone is IMO fundamentally wrong headed.
Please see my edit.
We all get to vote based on our own reasons. You see very compelling reasons to vote for Clinton. That is entirely your right, and I encourage you to act on it. I have already stated my reasons for voting for Sanders, and I'm going to act on them in kind.
For me, this fight for the soul of the party is absolutely worth having. I understand if you disagree, but that's pretty much where we're left.
I don't expect a Sanders Presidency to be a "big liberal jesus" or "fix everything". And frankly the implication that I do is insulting given the statements I've made in this very thread. I'm just happy to have someone shouting progressive positions and values from a very large stage. And I'm also very happy with the response he's getting for it.
Which is great, I agree. But I'm going to need more to believe what Bernie's selling. He's not pitching ideas, he's trying to restructure the political landscape in both the country and the Democratic party. He's going to need more than fancy words to make me believe he can do it for real. I'd rather a liberal leader that gets shit done than a speechmaker with ideas that have no chance of materializing.
Primaries are the place where we state our positions within the party. Sanders reflects my position far better than Clinton. Thus I will be voting for Sanders. If Clinton isn't a good enough politician to survive a challenge from the progressive wing, she wouldn't hold up in the general anyway.
True, which is why she remains the front runner - Bernie hasn't taken that crown from her. This primary is her's to lose, and she's far from done.
Edit: Part of the problem here, I think, is the idea that the Revolution can't start until after you've started the Revolution. Which really reads as paternalistic from this side of the table. People like me have been trying to push the party in the directions that Sanders is now succeeding at for decades. I, myself, have worked on half a dozen local progressive candidate's teams and helped secure fundraising for those same candidates along with state and federal office holders. This isn't some brand new shiny dream for me, this was my life from after college until I started teaching. I went door to freaking door to fund the 50 state strategy. Telling me the legwork hasn't been properly done by the progressive wing of the party is just wrong.
Then why aren't liberals taking over the Democratic party? Why aren't there a large force of powerful liberal politicians running for office or in office at the moment? Why is the DNC still run by a centrist? Why isn't Bernie publicly supporting these people this election? Why was Bernie the only liberal running in the Democratic primary? I don't see liberals as a relevant political group right now.
The idea that the Democrats in congress won't work with Sanders is incredibly silly. They already work with the man, rather happily.
Hillary will have this respect and loyalty immediately.
Sorry I just wanted to take a moment to laugh at this statement. Remember, we do not belong to an organized political party. We are democrats.
Almost every federal Democratic office holder has endorsed Clinton. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been campaigning and fundraising for most of Congress for the last two decades and the Senate leader in waiting (Schumer) and the Minority leader (Pelosi) are close Hillary allies.
Sanders has earned the ire of the Obama faction and the Clinton loyalists. He's never lifted a finger to campaign for another candidate. Almost no Congressman support him.
So why should I believe Hillary Clinton will get any initiative of hers through a GOP controlled House and/or Senate when the party has had a goddamn 20-Year-Long Two Minutes Hate for her entire family, culminating in the party holding multiple Benghazi hearings, email hearings, etc. for the, as one of their party members said, the express purpose of hurting her numbers for the general election?
What crazy-ass political judo does Hillary Clinton have to get anything through the party who has made it super clear that they motherfucking hate Hillary Clinton and want her to fail?
This isn't going to be something I think Clinton can just navigate around. The party is clear: They hate Hillary and anything that she wants is going to be fucking sunk on arrival with the GOP held chambers.
The idea that the Democrats in congress won't work with Sanders is incredibly silly. They already work with the man, rather happily.
Hillary will have this respect and loyalty immediately.
Sorry I just wanted to take a moment to laugh at this statement. Remember, we do not belong to an organized political party. We are democrats.
Almost every federal Democratic office holder has endorsed Clinton. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been campaigning and fundraising for most of Congress for the last two decades and the Senate leader in waiting (Schumer) and the Minority leader (Pelosi) are close Hillary allies.
Sanders has earned the ire of the Obama faction and the Clinton loyalists. He's never lifted a finger to campaign for another candidate. Almost no Congressman support him.
None of which means that they will do anything to help Hillary if it means a slight risk to their political careers. We really don't have much discipline in the party.
Witness the "Run from the President" in the 2014 Midterms.
I don't expect a Sanders Presidency to be a "big liberal jesus" or "fix everything". And frankly the implication that I do is insulting given the statements I've made in this very thread. I'm just happy to have someone shouting progressive positions and values from a very large stage. And I'm also very happy with the response he's getting for it.
Primaries are the place where we state our positions within the party. Sanders reflects my position far better than Clinton. Thus I will be voting for Sanders. If Clinton isn't a good enough politician to survive a challenge from the progressive wing, she wouldn't hold up in the general anyway.
Edit: Part of the problem here, I think, is the idea that the Revolution can't start until after you've started the Revolution. Which really reads as paternalistic from this side of the table. People like me have been trying to push the party in the directions that Sanders is now succeeding at for decades. I, myself, have worked on half a dozen local progressive candidate's teams and helped secure fundraising for those same candidates along with state and federal office holders. This isn't some brand new shiny dream for me, this was my life from after college until I started teaching. I went door to freaking door to fund the 50 state strategy. Telling me the legwork hasn't been properly done by the progressive wing of the party is just wrong.
Then why aren't liberals taking over the Democratic party? Why aren't there a large force of powerful liberal politicians running for office or in office at the moment? Why is the DNC still run by a centrist? Why isn't Bernie publicly supporting these people this election? Why was Bernie the only liberal running in the Democratic primary? I don't see liberals as a relevant political group right now.
That is changing.
Hillary Clinton, the most moderate of the centrists, is desperately clawing to try and take the mantle of progressive champion in this race. Establishment, which given party power structures is equivalent to centrism, is seen as a dirty word. Elisabeth Warren is almost universally loved by Democrats for her progressive stances. Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire, a state that Clinton came from behind to beat Obama in 2008, by 22 points. The only recent polling out of Nevada has him tied, and every focus group on every debate so far has him winning with his message over Clinton's measured incrementalist methods.
If anything, it's Progressives playing the long game within the party and the centrist establishment demanding proof that they are relevant (because apparently the Sanders candidacy vs the presumptive nominee isn't enough).
So why should I believe Hillary Clinton will get any initiative of hers through a GOP controlled House and/or Senate when the party has had a goddamn 20-Year-Long Two Minutes Hate for her entire family, culminating in the party holding multiple Benghazi hearings, email hearings, etc. for the, as one of their party members said, the express purpose of hurting her numbers for the general election?
That hearing practically gift wrapped her the presidency in the general.
What crazy-ass political judo does Hillary Clinton have to get anything through the party who has made it super clear that they motherfucking hate Hillary Clinton and want her to fail?
This isn't going to be something I think Clinton can just navigate around. The party is clear: They hate Hillary and anything that she wants is going to be fucking sunk on arrival with the GOP held chambers.
At least we know she has the Democratic party on her side for votes, and she's able to administrate properly - Bernie has neither. Not as much as she does, anyway. So why is Bernie the better pick?
So why should I believe Hillary Clinton will get any initiative of hers through a GOP controlled House and/or Senate when the party has had a goddamn 20-Year-Long Two Minutes Hate for her entire family, culminating in the party holding multiple Benghazi hearings, email hearings, etc. for the, as one of their party members said, the express purpose of hurting her numbers for the general election?
What crazy-ass political judo does Hillary Clinton have to get anything through the party who has made it super clear that they motherfucking hate Hillary Clinton and want her to fail?
This isn't going to be something I think Clinton can just navigate around. The party is clear: They hate Hillary and anything that she wants is going to be fucking sunk on arrival with the GOP held chambers.
More of what she is proposing to do can be done via executive order. Bernie needs legislation.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So why should I believe Hillary Clinton will get any initiative of hers through a GOP controlled House and/or Senate when the party has had a goddamn 20-Year-Long Two Minutes Hate for her entire family, culminating in the party holding multiple Benghazi hearings, email hearings, etc. for the, as one of their party members said, the express purpose of hurting her numbers for the general election?
What crazy-ass political judo does Hillary Clinton have to get anything through the party who has made it super clear that they motherfucking hate Hillary Clinton and want her to fail?
This isn't going to be something I think Clinton can just navigate around. The party is clear: They hate Hillary and anything that she wants is going to be fucking sunk on arrival with the GOP held chambers.
More of what she is proposing to do can be done via executive order. Bernie needs legislation.
I appreciate this; are you able at the moment to get into more specifics for how the two agendas break down further along the EO/Legislation line?
Under this spoiler is a list of sitting Democratic Senators and Representatives who endorsed candidates who were not Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic Primary.
Clinton
U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor (AR) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) (July 25, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye (HI) (May 25, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) (Sept. 24, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI) (Sept. 14, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD) (April 24, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ) (June 12, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) (June 6, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA) (Dec. 31, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Marion Berry (AR-1) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Vic Snyder (AR-2) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Mike Ross (AR-4) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui (CA-5) (May 16, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6) (Dec. 27, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA-10) (July 18, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (CA-12) (early 2007)
U.S. Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) (Dec. 8, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (CA-27) (Nov. 27, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (CA-32) (Oct. 17, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Diane Watson (CA-33 (Sept. 27, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34) (June 27, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (CA-36) (July 18, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Laura Richardson (CA-37) (Sept. 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Grace Napolitano (CA-38) (early 2007)
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (CO-1) (Nov. 26, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (FL-3) (June 25, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL-17) (June 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) (Feb. 20, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL-23) (Feb. 20, 2007)
U.S. Rep. John Lewis (GA-5) (Oct. 12, 2007)
U.S. Rep. David Scott (GA-13) (Oct, 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA-3) (Dec. 14, 2007)
U.S. Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-2) (June 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Richard Neal (MA-2) (May 8, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (MA-3) (Mar. 29, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (MA-4) (Nov. 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA-9) (Oct. 26, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (MO-5) (Aug. 21, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews (NJ-1) (April 2, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-6) (April 2, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell (NJ-8) (Aug. 16, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Donald Payne (NJ-10) (Jan. 1, 2008)
U.S. Rep. Albio Sires (NJ-13) (June 22, 2007)
...including all 23 NY Democratic House members
U.S. Rep. Tim Bishop (NY-1)
U.S. Rep. Steve Israel (NY-2) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (NY-5)
U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY-6) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley (NY-7) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8) (April 28, 2006)
U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY-9) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Edolphus Towns (NY-10) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY-11) (July 10, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (NY-15) (March 4, 2007 "Fox News Sunday")
U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano (NY-16) (Dec. 13, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (NY-17) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey (NY-18) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. John Hall (NY-19) (April 9, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)
U.S. Rep. Michael McNulty (NY-21) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)(May 25, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri (NY-24) (Jan. 20, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins (NY-27) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) (support for presidential run goes back several years)
U.S. Rep. Darlene Hooley (OR-5) (Aug. 6, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak (PA-7) (May 25, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz (PA-13) (Mar. 19, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Jim Langevin (RI-2) (June 1, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15) (formally announced June 15, 2007; known earlier)
U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) (May 14, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)(June 15, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-1) (June 21, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2) (Aug. 2, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Tom Carper (DE)
U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-14)
U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (CA-17) (see Aug. 23, 2007 Hollister Free Lance)
U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra (CA-31) (is a national co-chair)
U.S. Rep. John Larson (CT-1) (from the time of his announcement)
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (CT-2) (from the time of his announcement)
U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) (from the time of his announcement)
U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy (CT-5) (Jan. 12, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (OH-17) (Oct. 4, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (RI-1) (Feb. 5, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7) (...wrote ea. Feb. 2007 letter to DNC members)
U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-1) (Dec. 3, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud (ME-2) (Oct. 19, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (MI-1) (April 21, 2007 at the Michigan Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner)
U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN-8) (Mar. 29, 2007)
...including endorsements of all seven NC Democratic congressmen announced Mar. 8, 2007
U.S. Rep. G.K Butterfield (NC-1)
U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge (NC-2)
U.S. Rep. David Price (NC-4)
U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11)
U.S. Rep. Mel Watt (NC-12)
U.S. Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13)
U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD) (April 16, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20) (Mar. 7, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30) (...wrote Jan. 31, 2007 letter to DNC members)
U.S. Rep. David Obey (WI-7) (Mar. 27, 2007)
Please take a moment and contemplate that list.
Then think about how Obamacare is totally a thing that happened.
I'd be pretty surprised if a former mayor wasn't aware of the need for local action.
So he's just lying then
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.
He has repeatedly promised that the US will not be #1 in incarceration by the end of his first term. If he pardoned every federal prisoner he'd be 1/3 of the way there. He has put forth no plan to achieve this and it's high doubtful any such plan exists. Either he knows this and is lying or he's clueless.
See literally all of my previous statements regarding this campaign. On the last two pages, at least.
Right its just BS.
You want Bernie to be this shining light of idealism. Big fluffy lies are still lies even if it "shifts the conversation."
The point of a campaign is not a campaign. Clinton's proposals are real. Maybe she really won't be able to do what Obama did in his last 6 years and get incremental change. But she's got a much better chance than Sanders and at least she's honest about it.
Its just bizarre to frame the cynical idea that nothing can get done on a Democratic agenda and therefore its OK for Sanders to blatantly lie in order to stir up false hopes because you think that will "shift the conversation."
Big flashy top down change is exciting, enticing, energizing and doomed if the foundational work hasn't been done. Sanders couldn't be arsed to campaign outside of Vermont until he was trying to be President. He has no legislative coalition to get anything passed. Even as a Presidential candidate he's making no effort to support the party or other lower ticket candidates.
Did George McGovern "change the conversation"? Would Obama have been able to get ACA without the 50 state strategy? And even that is an effort to build gradual change that will eventually achieve universal healthcare.
The Koch brothers have built up the conservative movement not through campaign ads, but thinktanks, state legislatures, county parties and an infrastructure behind their ideology. Reagan is nothing without the Moral Majority and coalitions he (and Republicans like Charles Colson) built up over decades from the Governor's seat in California. FDR required a deep bench of highly capable Administrators, Secretaries and a cooperative Congress even during a major crisis that gave him a near blank check.
There's no Big Liberal Jesus who is going get elected to the White House and fix everything. And if someone tries to be that and fails, its not going to move the country left or build up the infrastructure needed to compete on equal footing at the local, state and off year federal level. And that's especially true if Big Liberal Jesus creates a backlash by being a failure like Carter, or on the other side George W Bush.
This isn't a campaign for Leader of the Democratic Party. This is a campaign for President of the United States. When you begin with the presumption that Sanders will be ineffective but support him simply because his rhetoric is even less realistic or honest, especially with the essentially universally accepted fact that Clinton is better able to actually run the Executive Branch and especially foreign affairs much more competently, I think a reexamination is called for, either of your priorities or your candidate.
The whole top-down outside the normal party's policy windows sounds alot like your standard third party candidate run.
Hillary Clinton, the most moderate of the centrists, is desperately clawing to try and take the mantle of progressive champion in this race. Establishment, which given party power structures is equivalent to centrism, is seen as a dirty word. Elisabeth Warren is almost universally loved by Democrats for her progressive stances. Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire, a state that Clinton came from behind to beat Obama in 2008, by 22 points. The only recent polling out of Nevada has him tied, and every focus group on every debate so far has him winning with his message over Clinton's measured incrementalist methods.
Hillary isn't clawing. Bernie's scoring a victory here and there, he hasn't got her head on a pike yet. Hillary doing that is a huge score for us, and this keeps her and the centrists in the same position before - they're not all been replaced by liberal outsiders. The centrists haven't lost any power here.
Bernie's win in NH is hardly surprising, it'd be more of a shock if he lost that state. We'll see how well he does with the votes in Nevada before claiming it's a victory for him. The primary is in its infancy, and he remains the underdog in this election.
If anything, it's Progressives playing the long game within the party and the centrist establishment demanding proof that they are relevant (because apparently the Sanders candidacy vs the presumptive nominee isn't enough).
That's a win for progressivism, not Bernie Sanders. And which progressives are you talking about? Who are they? What positions do they hold in the party to influence things? Bernie's candidacy isn't proof of anything. He's hardly the front runner, for one. The movement you're advocating for needs more than one man's candidacy to be taken seriously as evidence.
edit: Bernie's lucky he has no real opponents in this primary aside from Hillary, if Biden was in his race he'd have folded by now or become another O'Malley. He'd have been eviscerated long ago in a primary under similar conditions to '08.
Under this spoiler is a list of sitting Democratic Senators and Representatives who endorsed candidates who were not Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic Primary.
Clinton
U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor (AR) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) (July 25, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye (HI) (May 25, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) (Sept. 24, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI) (Sept. 14, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD) (April 24, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ) (June 12, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) (June 6, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA) (Dec. 31, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Marion Berry (AR-1) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Vic Snyder (AR-2) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Mike Ross (AR-4) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui (CA-5) (May 16, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6) (Dec. 27, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA-10) (July 18, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (CA-12) (early 2007)
U.S. Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) (Dec. 8, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (CA-27) (Nov. 27, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (CA-32) (Oct. 17, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Diane Watson (CA-33 (Sept. 27, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34) (June 27, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (CA-36) (July 18, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Laura Richardson (CA-37) (Sept. 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Grace Napolitano (CA-38) (early 2007)
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (CO-1) (Nov. 26, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (FL-3) (June 25, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL-17) (June 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) (Feb. 20, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL-23) (Feb. 20, 2007)
U.S. Rep. John Lewis (GA-5) (Oct. 12, 2007)
U.S. Rep. David Scott (GA-13) (Oct, 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA-3) (Dec. 14, 2007)
U.S. Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-2) (June 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Richard Neal (MA-2) (May 8, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (MA-3) (Mar. 29, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (MA-4) (Nov. 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA-9) (Oct. 26, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (MO-5) (Aug. 21, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews (NJ-1) (April 2, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-6) (April 2, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell (NJ-8) (Aug. 16, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Donald Payne (NJ-10) (Jan. 1, 2008)
U.S. Rep. Albio Sires (NJ-13) (June 22, 2007)
...including all 23 NY Democratic House members
U.S. Rep. Tim Bishop (NY-1)
U.S. Rep. Steve Israel (NY-2) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (NY-5)
U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY-6) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley (NY-7) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8) (April 28, 2006)
U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY-9) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Edolphus Towns (NY-10) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY-11) (July 10, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (NY-15) (March 4, 2007 "Fox News Sunday")
U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano (NY-16) (Dec. 13, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (NY-17) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey (NY-18) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. John Hall (NY-19) (April 9, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)
U.S. Rep. Michael McNulty (NY-21) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)(May 25, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri (NY-24) (Jan. 20, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins (NY-27) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) (support for presidential run goes back several years)
U.S. Rep. Darlene Hooley (OR-5) (Aug. 6, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak (PA-7) (May 25, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz (PA-13) (Mar. 19, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Jim Langevin (RI-2) (June 1, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15) (formally announced June 15, 2007; known earlier)
U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) (May 14, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)(June 15, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-1) (June 21, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2) (Aug. 2, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Tom Carper (DE)
U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-14)
U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (CA-17) (see Aug. 23, 2007 Hollister Free Lance)
U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra (CA-31) (is a national co-chair)
U.S. Rep. John Larson (CT-1) (from the time of his announcement)
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (CT-2) (from the time of his announcement)
U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) (from the time of his announcement)
U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy (CT-5) (Jan. 12, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (OH-17) (Oct. 4, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (RI-1) (Feb. 5, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7) (...wrote ea. Feb. 2007 letter to DNC members)
U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-1) (Dec. 3, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud (ME-2) (Oct. 19, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (MI-1) (April 21, 2007 at the Michigan Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner)
U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN-8) (Mar. 29, 2007)
...including endorsements of all seven NC Democratic congressmen announced Mar. 8, 2007
U.S. Rep. G.K Butterfield (NC-1)
U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge (NC-2)
U.S. Rep. David Price (NC-4)
U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11)
U.S. Rep. Mel Watt (NC-12)
U.S. Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13)
U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD) (April 16, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20) (Mar. 7, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30) (...wrote Jan. 31, 2007 letter to DNC members)
U.S. Rep. David Obey (WI-7) (Mar. 27, 2007)
Please take a moment and contemplate that list.
Then think about how Obamacare is totally a thing that happened.
Endorsements mean nothing in actual governance.
Show me the list of congresspeople who endorsed Obama in 2008 now.
Cause as I remember it was also a good sized list.
So why should I believe Hillary Clinton will get any initiative of hers through a GOP controlled House and/or Senate when the party has had a goddamn 20-Year-Long Two Minutes Hate for her entire family, culminating in the party holding multiple Benghazi hearings, email hearings, etc. for the, as one of their party members said, the express purpose of hurting her numbers for the general election?
What crazy-ass political judo does Hillary Clinton have to get anything through the party who has made it super clear that they motherfucking hate Hillary Clinton and want her to fail?
This isn't going to be something I think Clinton can just navigate around. The party is clear: They hate Hillary and anything that she wants is going to be fucking sunk on arrival with the GOP held chambers.
More of what she is proposing to do can be done via executive order. Bernie needs legislation.
I appreciate this; are you able at the moment to get into more specifics for how the two agendas break down further along the EO/Legislation line?
I can give you a general idea: if it's a change in regulatory framework, the executive can do it with an executive order (well, until SCOTUS rules they can't for purely partisan reasons). If it's a drastic overhaul of an entire system, you need legislation.
Like everything Bernie proposes is the latter. Some of what Hillary proposes is (campaign finance, for example), but others (improving ACA) she can do on her own.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
So, in case Democrats win both houses of Congress, we should be sure to vote Hillary?
The likelihood of the antecedent is so low that it's hard to get excited about this as a reason to vote Hillary, even without allowing for the (obvious) possibility that a Sanders-in-office would treat his campaign points as ambitious goals rather than non-negotiable preconditions for any action whatsoever.
Then why not vote for Ted Cruz? He's promising equally impossible legislature. If the content of the promises doesn't matter, what's the difference?
Indeed. Practicality isn't a bad thing on issues that aren't black and white in getting changes with.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Bernie has. Can't run as an independent in a Democratic primary. That's why when or if he becomes the nominee he'll get a D next to his name (and he has that already by being in this position.) There are no independents in the Democratic party, only Democrats.
He has repeatedly promised that the US will not be #1 in incarceration by the end of his first term. If he pardoned every federal prisoner he'd be 1/3 of the way there. He has put forth no plan to achieve this and it's high doubtful any such plan exists. Either he knows this and is lying or he's clueless.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
at 35:05
and education:
at 22:30
e: sorry, I don't know how to embed the videos at a certain time stamp
See literally all of my previous statements regarding this campaign. On the last two pages, at least.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If a candidate can go ahead and promise whatever they want as long as it's not realistic, then how do you differentiate?
Sure, this is as extreme of a contrast as possible and Cruz likely holds beliefs personally that you find abhorrent. But if he won't ever be able to make them a reality then how is it different than Bernie promising the moon with no real way to deliver?
The point I'm driving at is that there is an actual difference between campaign promises, even if they are both unlikely to become law.
Well, I think the issue with this comparison is that Cruz is much more likely to get things through a Republican congress than either of the Democrats are. Although Cruz being Cruz I'm sure he would find a way to fudge that up.
This is the least the left can do to become a political force, though. If Bernie was the man who was able to make the left a powerhouse in politics he'd be working on building a massive coalition and getting resources (alternative or otherwise) to take over the Democrats from within then when a liberal ran for president they'd have a bigger shot at becoming a front runner rather than a sideshow. Because right now we're weak as a political force.
I've already talked about how Sanders' campaign promises and statements are exactly the reason I'm supporting him. At length, quoted by half a dozen posters trying to string me up for them. You are not making any point that I have not already been making, here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That's the best case scenario and with that at least we have more certainty the Democratic party on board, which is something tangible, rather than having a president with two parties who won't work with him completely.
What was said, by Pelosi, was that the scope of Sanders' ideas was not tenable with the current and likely versions of congress. Not that she would be making an effort to cut him out of the process out of spite.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I never, ever said you should vote for Cruz. It was just a rhetorical example.
To a degree you're right, but they're not going to have a relationship like Hillary's, whose deeply entrenched in the group.
Spite, no, but there will be resistance from her. Not having the Speaker on the president's side like that is not a good place to start when you want to change the nation from the congress. Remember she has to sell this to other senators, who also may not be on board the Bernie train.
edit: Bernie will have to start a closer relationship and alliance with the congress Democrats right off the bat. This will take time, and he has to form ties deeper then he did as an independent - and there's no guarantee he'll be able to do it or if he does he can keep his base happy for a second term. Hillary will have this respect and loyalty immediately.
Then, and I truly mean no offense by this, it was poorly chosen.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Right its just BS.
You want Bernie to be this shining light of idealism. Big fluffy lies are still lies even if it "shifts the conversation."
The point of a campaign is not a campaign. Clinton's proposals are real. Maybe she really won't be able to do what Obama did in his last 6 years and get incremental change. But she's got a much better chance than Sanders and at least she's honest about it.
Its just bizarre to frame the cynical idea that nothing can get done on a Democratic agenda and therefore its OK for Sanders to blatantly lie in order to stir up false hopes because you think that will "shift the conversation."
Big flashy top down change is exciting, enticing, energizing and doomed if the foundational work hasn't been done. Sanders couldn't be arsed to campaign outside of Vermont until he was trying to be President. He has no legislative coalition to get anything passed. Even as a Presidential candidate he's making no effort to support the party or other lower ticket candidates.
Did George McGovern "change the conversation"? Would Obama have been able to get ACA without the 50 state strategy? And even that is an effort to build gradual change that will eventually achieve universal healthcare.
The Koch brothers have built up the conservative movement not through campaign ads, but thinktanks, state legislatures, county parties and an infrastructure behind their ideology. Reagan is nothing without the Moral Majority and coalitions he (and Republicans like Charles Colson) built up over decades from the Governor's seat in California. FDR required a deep bench of highly capable Administrators, Secretaries and a cooperative Congress even during a major crisis that gave him a near blank check.
There's no Big Liberal Jesus who is going get elected to the White House and fix everything. And if someone tries to be that and fails, its not going to move the country left or build up the infrastructure needed to compete on equal footing at the local, state and off year federal level. And that's especially true if Big Liberal Jesus creates a backlash by being a failure like Carter, or on the other side George W Bush.
This isn't a campaign for Leader of the Democratic Party. This is a campaign for President of the United States. When you begin with the presumption that Sanders will be ineffective but support him simply because his rhetoric is even less realistic or honest, especially with the essentially universally accepted fact that Clinton is better able to actually run the Executive Branch and especially foreign affairs much more competently, I think a reexamination is called for, either of your priorities or your candidate.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Primaries are the place where we state our positions within the party. Sanders reflects my position far better than Clinton. Thus I will be voting for Sanders. If Clinton isn't a good enough politician to survive a challenge from the progressive wing, she wouldn't hold up in the general anyway.
Edit: Part of the problem here, I think, is the idea that the Revolution can't start until after you've started the Revolution. Which really reads as paternalistic from this side of the table. People like me have been trying to push the party in the directions that Sanders is now succeeding at for decades. I, myself, have worked on half a dozen local progressive candidate's teams and helped secure fundraising for those same candidates along with state and federal office holders. This isn't some brand new shiny dream for me, this was my life from after college until I started teaching. I went door to freaking door to fund the 50 state strategy. Telling me the legwork hasn't been properly done by the progressive wing of the party is just wrong.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sorry I just wanted to take a moment to laugh at this statement. Remember, we do not belong to an organized political party. We are democrats.
No primaries are where we pick our candidates. And picking a Presidential candidate not for his potential Presidency or even maximizing the expected value from the general election (weighing general election strength vs difference with Republican Presidency) but because it gives ideas you agree with a big megaphone is IMO fundamentally wrong headed.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
We all get to vote based on our own reasons. You see very compelling reasons to vote for Clinton. That is entirely your right, and I encourage you to act on it. I have already stated my reasons for voting for Sanders, and I'm going to act on them in kind.
For me, this fight for the soul of the party is absolutely worth having. I understand if you disagree, but that's pretty much where we're left.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Which is great, I agree. But I'm going to need more to believe what Bernie's selling. He's not pitching ideas, he's trying to restructure the political landscape in both the country and the Democratic party. He's going to need more than fancy words to make me believe he can do it for real. I'd rather a liberal leader that gets shit done than a speechmaker with ideas that have no chance of materializing.
True, which is why she remains the front runner - Bernie hasn't taken that crown from her. This primary is her's to lose, and she's far from done.
Then why aren't liberals taking over the Democratic party? Why aren't there a large force of powerful liberal politicians running for office or in office at the moment? Why is the DNC still run by a centrist? Why isn't Bernie publicly supporting these people this election? Why was Bernie the only liberal running in the Democratic primary? I don't see liberals as a relevant political group right now.
Almost every federal Democratic office holder has endorsed Clinton. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been campaigning and fundraising for most of Congress for the last two decades and the Senate leader in waiting (Schumer) and the Minority leader (Pelosi) are close Hillary allies.
Sanders has earned the ire of the Obama faction and the Clinton loyalists. He's never lifted a finger to campaign for another candidate. Almost no Congressman support him.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
What crazy-ass political judo does Hillary Clinton have to get anything through the party who has made it super clear that they motherfucking hate Hillary Clinton and want her to fail?
This isn't going to be something I think Clinton can just navigate around. The party is clear: They hate Hillary and anything that she wants is going to be fucking sunk on arrival with the GOP held chambers.
None of which means that they will do anything to help Hillary if it means a slight risk to their political careers. We really don't have much discipline in the party.
Witness the "Run from the President" in the 2014 Midterms.
We need a party whip with an actual goddamn whip.
That is changing.
Hillary Clinton, the most moderate of the centrists, is desperately clawing to try and take the mantle of progressive champion in this race. Establishment, which given party power structures is equivalent to centrism, is seen as a dirty word. Elisabeth Warren is almost universally loved by Democrats for her progressive stances. Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire, a state that Clinton came from behind to beat Obama in 2008, by 22 points. The only recent polling out of Nevada has him tied, and every focus group on every debate so far has him winning with his message over Clinton's measured incrementalist methods.
If anything, it's Progressives playing the long game within the party and the centrist establishment demanding proof that they are relevant (because apparently the Sanders candidacy vs the presumptive nominee isn't enough).
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That hearing practically gift wrapped her the presidency in the general.
At least we know she has the Democratic party on her side for votes, and she's able to administrate properly - Bernie has neither. Not as much as she does, anyway. So why is Bernie the better pick?
More of what she is proposing to do can be done via executive order. Bernie needs legislation.
I appreciate this; are you able at the moment to get into more specifics for how the two agendas break down further along the EO/Legislation line?
U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor (AR) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) (July 25, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye (HI) (May 25, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) (Sept. 24, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI) (Sept. 14, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD) (April 24, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ) (June 12, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) (June 6, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA) (Dec. 31, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Marion Berry (AR-1) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Vic Snyder (AR-2) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Mike Ross (AR-4) (June 22, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui (CA-5) (May 16, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6) (Dec. 27, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA-10) (July 18, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (CA-12) (early 2007)
U.S. Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) (Dec. 8, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (CA-27) (Nov. 27, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (CA-32) (Oct. 17, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Diane Watson (CA-33 (Sept. 27, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34) (June 27, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (CA-36) (July 18, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Laura Richardson (CA-37) (Sept. 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Grace Napolitano (CA-38) (early 2007)
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (CO-1) (Nov. 26, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (FL-3) (June 25, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL-17) (June 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) (Feb. 20, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL-23) (Feb. 20, 2007)
U.S. Rep. John Lewis (GA-5) (Oct. 12, 2007)
U.S. Rep. David Scott (GA-13) (Oct, 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA-3) (Dec. 14, 2007)
U.S. Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-2) (June 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Richard Neal (MA-2) (May 8, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (MA-3) (Mar. 29, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (MA-4) (Nov. 13, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA-9) (Oct. 26, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (MO-5) (Aug. 21, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews (NJ-1) (April 2, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-6) (April 2, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell (NJ-8) (Aug. 16, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Donald Payne (NJ-10) (Jan. 1, 2008)
U.S. Rep. Albio Sires (NJ-13) (June 22, 2007)
...including all 23 NY Democratic House members
U.S. Rep. Tim Bishop (NY-1)
U.S. Rep. Steve Israel (NY-2) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (NY-5)
U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY-6) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley (NY-7) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8) (April 28, 2006)
U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY-9) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Edolphus Towns (NY-10) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke (NY-11) (July 10, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (NY-15) (March 4, 2007 "Fox News Sunday")
U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano (NY-16) (Dec. 13, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (NY-17) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey (NY-18) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. John Hall (NY-19) (April 9, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)
U.S. Rep. Michael McNulty (NY-21) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)(May 25, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri (NY-24) (Jan. 20, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins (NY-27) (Dec. 8, 2006 Daily News)
U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) (support for presidential run goes back several years)
U.S. Rep. Darlene Hooley (OR-5) (Aug. 6, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak (PA-7) (May 25, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz (PA-13) (Mar. 19, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Jim Langevin (RI-2) (June 1, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15) (formally announced June 15, 2007; known earlier)
U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) (May 14, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)(June 15, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-1) (June 21, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2) (Aug. 2, 2007)
U.S. Sen. Tom Carper (DE)
U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-14)
U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (CA-17) (see Aug. 23, 2007 Hollister Free Lance)
U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra (CA-31) (is a national co-chair)
U.S. Rep. John Larson (CT-1) (from the time of his announcement)
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (CT-2) (from the time of his announcement)
U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) (from the time of his announcement)
U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy (CT-5) (Jan. 12, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (OH-17) (Oct. 4, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (RI-1) (Feb. 5, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7) (...wrote ea. Feb. 2007 letter to DNC members)
U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-1) (Dec. 3, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud (ME-2) (Oct. 19, 2007)
U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (MI-1) (April 21, 2007 at the Michigan Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner)
U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN-8) (Mar. 29, 2007)
...including endorsements of all seven NC Democratic congressmen announced Mar. 8, 2007
U.S. Rep. G.K Butterfield (NC-1)
U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge (NC-2)
U.S. Rep. David Price (NC-4)
U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11)
U.S. Rep. Mel Watt (NC-12)
U.S. Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13)
U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD) (April 16, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20) (Mar. 7, 2007) +
U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30) (...wrote Jan. 31, 2007 letter to DNC members)
U.S. Rep. David Obey (WI-7) (Mar. 27, 2007)
Please take a moment and contemplate that list.
Then think about how Obamacare is totally a thing that happened.
Endorsements mean nothing in actual governance.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The whole top-down outside the normal party's policy windows sounds alot like your standard third party candidate run.
Hillary isn't clawing. Bernie's scoring a victory here and there, he hasn't got her head on a pike yet. Hillary doing that is a huge score for us, and this keeps her and the centrists in the same position before - they're not all been replaced by liberal outsiders. The centrists haven't lost any power here.
Bernie's win in NH is hardly surprising, it'd be more of a shock if he lost that state. We'll see how well he does with the votes in Nevada before claiming it's a victory for him. The primary is in its infancy, and he remains the underdog in this election.
That's a win for progressivism, not Bernie Sanders. And which progressives are you talking about? Who are they? What positions do they hold in the party to influence things? Bernie's candidacy isn't proof of anything. He's hardly the front runner, for one. The movement you're advocating for needs more than one man's candidacy to be taken seriously as evidence.
edit: Bernie's lucky he has no real opponents in this primary aside from Hillary, if Biden was in his race he'd have folded by now or become another O'Malley. He'd have been eviscerated long ago in a primary under similar conditions to '08.
They are a nice thing to have on your side in a primary. Can't govern when you're not elected into office.
Show me the list of congresspeople who endorsed Obama in 2008 now.
Cause as I remember it was also a good sized list.
I can give you a general idea: if it's a change in regulatory framework, the executive can do it with an executive order (well, until SCOTUS rules they can't for purely partisan reasons). If it's a drastic overhaul of an entire system, you need legislation.
Like everything Bernie proposes is the latter. Some of what Hillary proposes is (campaign finance, for example), but others (improving ACA) she can do on her own.
And that's fine, as long as you agree that this is a 100% faith-based sentiment. Because her record doesn't really back this up.