Poll out of Nevada puts then even 45-45. Free Beacon. It's link If I wasn't on my phone.
Morning Consult national poll has Clinton up 46-39. +6 movement for Sanders over last week.
Nevada is the big wild card at the moment. Caucus, traditionally low turnout. Either candidate definitely has a chance.
If Sanders can claim any degree of victory, this thing runs deep into march at the very least. Even if Clinton wins by Iowa margins, she probably wins SC too and the inevitability narrative starts to take hold.
So do you have any actual evidence that Sanders won't take incremental change if that's all he can get?
I seem to recall him compromising on his prized veterans legislation to get it through congress
It costs nothing to talk about the changes you want. There's no reason whatsoever to compromise before you even begin the battle, and frankly I'm sick of politicians I support doing so.
Incremental change if that's all he can get isn't what Sanders has based his entire campaign on.
Realistically, no shit he fight for what he wants and take what he can get. I don't think anyone's really doubting that, but I definitely think he's more likely to make perfect the enemy of good than Hillary is.
And hey, when Hillary takes the incremental change she can get, everyone who doesn't like her can point to it as an example of how she's a triangulating centrist who doesn't really care about the issue. We all win!
Obama had a supermajority when he took office in a climate when the country would have accepted him crucifying the entire financial sector
he wasn't interested
As to the second bolded, YES there are numerous people in this thread who are doubting that Sanders will take incremental change
The idea that Obama had a filibuster-proof supermajority that would have let him do whatever is a myth. Between Franken, Byrd, and Kennedy - to say nothing of Lieberman and the Blue Dogs - Obama never could have gone after Wall Street. Hell, he was barely able to get the watered down version of the ACA we ended up with passed.
But think about it for a second.
Taking your assumptions at face value - a hugely popular Democratic president, elected in a landslide with (in theory) both branches of legislature behind him, at a time that the country was clamoring for Wall Street couldn't or wouldn't punish them.
What makes you think Bernie will be able to? Is it that he really, really wants to?
As for incremental change. I'm not sure who is saying Sanders will act like a petulant child on every single issue, but I haven't really seen anyone say that. He's simply going to have to accept some incremental change because the alternative is no change whatsoever. I think you're reading too much people simply aren't writing.
On the other hand, there have been a few points raised that by starting further left, he'll drag the compromise point further his way than starting closer to the center. Which can be true in some cases, but starting from an unrealistic position getting you more of what you want isn't a universal truth in negotiations. Lots of times, having an unrealistic starting position will get you nothing - it all depends on who you are negotiating with.
Poll out of Nevada puts then even 45-45. Free Beacon. It's link If I wasn't on my phone.
Morning Consult national poll has Clinton up 46-39. +6 movement for Sanders over last week.
Nevada is the big wild card at the moment. Caucus, traditionally low turnout. Either candidate definitely has a chance.
If Sanders can claim any degree of victory, this thing runs deep into march at the very least. Even if Clinton wins by Iowa margins, she probably wins SC too and the inevitability narrative starts to take hold.
Clinton had to do more than eek out a .2% win in Nevada If she wants her inevitability pitch back in any real way. She's only leading with Latinos by 8% nationwide last I saw, and last night's immigrating exchange probably didn't do her any favors there.
Nevada last time went Obama by vote and Clinton by delegate If I recall. If something similar happens this year, Sanders is going to raise $10 million overnight.
It's not about dragging the compromise point further left in the immediate term, it's about increasing the power of progressives within the government
if we're going under the assumption that the Republicans are always going to have a majority then the 18 year olds are right and there's no point in voting
Am I taking crazy pills? Is EVERYONE here of the opinion that Obama only didn't go after Wall Street because he didn't have political capital? Did I imagine Lanny Breuer never investigating for criminal malfeasance or Holder saying we didn't go after them because we were worried about effects on the economy, and it having nothing to do with the administration being unable to do so?
D&D's opinion of the general Democratic Party and Obama in particular sure has improved a lot since Sanders started running - the guy doesn't even have faults anymore
I don't think she does need to win by more than .2%. Any win at all will be fine.
Sanders has closed the gap considerably on momentum, but he still needs more of it to actually win the nomination. In a world where Clinton narrowly wins Nevada, I find it very hard to see a path through primary season where she doesn't win 50.1% of the delegates.
Eta: Maybe I'm misreading it, but Sanders just doesn't look like Obama to me. He doesn't have the demographics to turn out across 50 states without a strong momentum narrative.
I don't think she does need to win by more than .2%. Any win at all will be fine.
Sanders has closed the gap considerably on momentum, but he still needs more of it to actually win the nomination. In a world where Clinton narrowly wins Nevada, I find it very hard to see a path through primary season where she doesn't win 50.1% of the delegates.
At this point she has to find a way to blunt his functionally effortless fundraising. One of the huge advantages of small online donor bases is that you don't have to constantly fly back to NYC or LA to meet with donors and that means you can keep campaigning in the actual contested states.
Priorities USA, one of her PACs, was planning on keeping their powder dry for the general, but note they're throwing $4.5 million at an ad buy in SC. Clinton has something like 20 fundraising stops scheduled between now and the 20th. The traditional fundraising model is hugely demanding on the candidate's time. And that's less time for her to be face to face with voters.
If she wants to win this, she needs to stabilize. Functionally tying in a state that she was touting as the focus of her minority outreach two months ago doesn't get that done.
South Carolina is by far her most important state pre-super tuesday. If she goes out and wins by 20 with more than 20-30% point advantage among blacks, the race is over.
Nevada is also obviously important, but mostly as it relates to South Carolina. Surprised there isn't more Nevada polling currently, only one very low ranked pollster has touched them in the last month.
I'm not sure how much Sanders benefits from fundraising. His support comes from places that are a lot more likely to notice a Facebook like than a TV ad.
But at the end of the day, my opinion is filtered through the lens that I don't think Sanders is a long-term viable candidate. You can play at this level for a month or two on helium from some positive stories and novelty, as we saw earlier in the process with a guy like Carson. But that support fades once the voters get to know you unless they decide they *really* like you or really respect your leadership abilities. They really liked Obama. I don't think they'll really like Sanders that broadly nor do they expect him to be effective enough to do it. I see him as a Ross Perot type within the primary.
I want Bernie Sanders in the senate. I want him in the primary firing from the left to keep candidates from Clinton from tacking too hard to the center. I want him framing the debate. I'm not sure that I want him leading the executive branch of the United States government and being the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, which he until very recently spurned. And I *think* I can still read the US populace and even the Democratic primary voters well enough that I can see that most of them don't want that either.
So basically I'm positing that Sanders is getting a fairly substantial lift from novelty and momentum at the moment, and if he wants to stay where he is at as the novelty wears off, he needs more wins. Outright wins, not 49.9% moral victories.
I don't think I'm coming at this biased because I never liked Clinton all that much. And if he is polling at 45%+ six weeks from now without winning at least half of the intervening contests, then obviously I was wrong and he has that staying power. But until then, I just can't see it.
It's not about dragging the compromise point further left in the immediate term, it's about increasing the power of progressives within the government
Which is not going to happen since congress isn't full of progressives and Bernie isn't supporting a large number getting elected this year. And the centrists remain the power behind the thrown in the Democratic party itself. Bernie being president now changes nothing on these fronts.
So do you have any actual evidence that Sanders won't take incremental change if that's all he can get?
I seem to recall him compromising on his prized veterans legislation to get it through congress
It costs nothing to talk about the changes you want. There's no reason whatsoever to compromise before you even begin the battle, and frankly I'm sick of politicians I support doing so.
Incremental change if that's all he can get isn't what Sanders has based his entire campaign on.
Realistically, no shit he fight for what he wants and take what he can get. I don't think anyone's really doubting that, but I definitely think he's more likely to make perfect the enemy of good than Hillary is.
And hey, when Hillary takes the incremental change she can get, everyone who doesn't like her can point to it as an example of how she's a triangulating centrist who doesn't really care about the issue. We all win!
Obama had a supermajority when he took office in a climate when the country would have accepted him crucifying the entire financial sector
he wasn't interested
As to the second bolded, YES there are numerous people in this thread who are doubting that Sanders will take incremental change
The idea that Obama had a filibuster-proof supermajority that would have let him do whatever is a myth. Between Franken, Byrd, and Kennedy - to say nothing of Lieberman and the Blue Dogs - Obama never could have gone after Wall Street. Hell, he was barely able to get the watered down version of the ACA we ended up with passed.
Also remember that the Tea Party was founded in response to proposals to bail out mortgage borrowers. God knows what they would have done if anything substansive happened.
It's not about dragging the compromise point further left in the immediate term, it's about increasing the power of progressives within the government
Which is not going to happen since congress isn't full of progressives and Bernie isn't supporting a large number getting elected this year. And the centrists remain the power behind the thrown in the Democratic party itself. Bernie being president now changes nothing on these fronts.
I guess with this party that might be true, but if I thought that the country was literally going to stay this way forever I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning
But I'm going to chose to believe that if Sanders wins or fuck even if he doesn't, this immense showing of support for liberal ideas will motivate some progressive runs in the house and senate in the next few elections
Stop and take a look around you, 2 years ago Democrats wouldn't even admit they voted for the president, now we have the frontrunner falling over herself to say that she's always been progressive
It's not about dragging the compromise point further left in the immediate term, it's about increasing the power of progressives within the government
Which is not going to happen since congress isn't full of progressives and Bernie isn't supporting a large number getting elected this year. And the centrists remain the power behind the thrown in the Democratic party itself. Bernie being president now changes nothing on these fronts.
I know you're an enemy of progressives but you're going to tell me with a straight face that if Sanders wins the presidency, there's going to be no progressives running in 2018 or 2020 for downticket races?
I guess with this party that might be true, but if I thought that the country was literally going to stay this way forever I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning
Uncalled for Rhetoric I think you can do better override.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I know you're an enemy of progressives but you're going to tell me with a straight face that if Sanders wins the presidency, there's going to be no progressives running in 2018 or 2020 for downticket races?
I'm a progressive, and Bernie supporter. It isn't about there not being progressives running, it's that there aren't enough to matter to get his agenda enacted. And I haven't seen Bernie support any running lately, have you?
I guess with this party that might be true, but if I thought that the country was literally going to stay this way forever I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning
Whose saying it has to stay this way forever? Incremental political change is a thing, and it's always been that way. People here are on your side, they just don't want to be as ambitious or they'll end up burnt. Like what you're going through.
I don't know what you expected from the Dem party, but they're literally the only game in town for the change you want. Asking for the impossible was never going to get you what you want, that road leads to disappointment.
But I'm going to chose to believe that if Sanders wins or fuck even if he doesn't, this immense showing of support for liberal ideas will motivate some progressive runs in the house and senate in the next few elections
That's what I thought Bernie was originally doing, but nope. By then that's to late to help him. Showing support for liberal ideals is awesome, but for those goals to be real require engagement with real politics and that is messy, frustrating and requires patience. Can't win elections or change the government on hope alone.
You sure as fuck can't change the government if you cede the very idea that the government needs changing - eg opposition to progressivism
Progressivism is about progress, you don't give up on things because they're not going to happen in the next cycle, that's how corporate America thinks and it's why the country is turning into such a shithole
You sure as fuck can't change the government if you cede the very idea that the government needs changing - eg opposition to progressivism
Progressivism is about progress, you don't give up on things because they're not going to happen in the next cycle, that's how corporate America thinks and it's why the country is turning into such a shithole
And who the fuck here is doing that?
Just because we don't think Sanders is capable of doing the change needed, does not mean we don't want the change.
I think Bernie will lose, but I'm gonna support him because he needs my help. Mrs. Clinton doesn't need my help
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm checking out for a while, guys. I don't know why, but lately I think this primary has been stressing me out more than it should (on top of the various work/life stressors I have right now).
Best of luck to both candidates in their primaries, I doubt it'll be competitive anymore by the time I'd be voting anyway.
It's not about dragging the compromise point further left in the immediate term, it's about increasing the power of progressives within the government
if we're going under the assumption that the Republicans are always going to have a majority then the 18 year olds are right and there's no point in voting
Am I taking crazy pills? Is EVERYONE here of the opinion that Obama only didn't go after Wall Street because he didn't have political capital? Did I imagine Lanny Breuer never investigating for criminal malfeasance or Holder saying we didn't go after them because we were worried about effects on the economy, and it having nothing to do with the administration being unable to do so?
D&D's opinion of the general Democratic Party and Obama in particular sure has improved a lot since Sanders started running - the guy doesn't even have faults anymore
it really is incredible
I don't know how you can look at Obama's staff, with people like Bernanke and Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and say "yeah the only reason they didn't go after Wall Street is because it wasn't politically feasible"
You literally just used a Hillary Clinton talking point while arguing how Hillary or posters here or somebody doesn't want to make progress.
I am not really sure what your point is besides being angry at the current state of affairs, or who or what posts it is directed at.
I'm seeing a lot of saying Sanders is a bad pick because he's too idealistic, but none of Hillary's legislative agenda is going through either, so why isn't any of that thrown back her way?
Furthermore on race, Clinton herself has said that a president can really only deal with the economic realities, why is that exclusively a weapon against Sanders?
I fully accept the criticism that Sanders should have his legislative agenda be realistic (eg: ready to present to congress) when it quite clearly is not, or that he wouldn't be as good of an executive, or that he would have a more antagonistic relationship with the party
but a lot of the language used is borderline identical to the mocking of Obama for being for "hope and change", as if the notion of standing for things because he believes it is the moral thing to do is itself a failing
No matter which candidate you support, I think everybody can agree DWS needs to be extricated from her position.
God yes. I remember she actually tweeted asking why the Republicans hid a recent debate on the weekend and my boyfriend showed me the article talking about it and the title was "Pot tweets kettle." I was amused, but also saddened.
You literally just used a Hillary Clinton talking point while arguing how Hillary or posters here or somebody doesn't want to make progress.
I am not really sure what your point is besides being angry at the current state of affairs, or who or what posts it is directed at.
I'm seeing a lot of saying Sanders is a bad pick because he's too idealistic, but none of Hillary's legislative agenda is going through either, so why isn't any of that thrown back her way?
Because she's not trying to get through Congress. Her plans are things that the executive branch can do largely or entirely by itself.
Speaking of DWS, here she is when asked by Jake Tapper to summarize the purpose of superdelegates for uninformed voters who might feel like they rig the process (which in actuality, they do not, but they certainly give the appearance of a rigged system to someone who does not understand them):
Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.
No matter which candidate you support, I think everybody can agree DWS needs to be extricated from her position.
God yes. I remember she actually tweeted asking why the Republicans hid a recent debate on the weekend and my boyfriend showed me the article talking about it and the title was "Pot tweets kettle." I was amused, but also saddened.
Yeah, I think she actually lacks the fundamental capacity for self-reflection, or much reflection at all, actually. Which is why she's (poorly) explaining superdelegates in ways that make it seem even likelier to the base that they're leaning on the primaries and abandoning Obama's Rule in the face of heated opposition to shady campaign financing.
You literally just used a Hillary Clinton talking point while arguing how Hillary or posters here or somebody doesn't want to make progress.
I am not really sure what your point is besides being angry at the current state of affairs, or who or what posts it is directed at.
I'm seeing a lot of saying Sanders is a bad pick because he's too idealistic, but none of Hillary's legislative agenda is going through either, so why isn't any of that thrown back her way?
Because she's not trying to get through Congress. Her plans are things that the executive branch can do largely or entirely by itself.
Additionally, Clinton's plans actually do have the support of the Democratic caucus by and large and unlike Sanders, Clinton has a history (even in the 00s) of gaining Republican support for legislation. She also has a much better history of supporting down ticket candidates through campaigning, fundraising and actually holding positions that will play well in swing districts.
Plus again, even if we assumed Sanders agenda not being viable meant Clinton's was likewise DOA, that just indicates we should pick the best administrator with the best ability to run the executive branch. That's pretty clearly Clinton
You literally just used a Hillary Clinton talking point while arguing how Hillary or posters here or somebody doesn't want to make progress.
I am not really sure what your point is besides being angry at the current state of affairs, or who or what posts it is directed at.
I'm seeing a lot of saying Sanders is a bad pick because he's too idealistic, but none of Hillary's legislative agenda is going through either, so why isn't any of that thrown back her way?
Because she's not trying to get through Congress. Her plans are things that the executive branch can do largely or entirely by itself.
Debt-free college? Any of her tax proposals? Expanding Obamacare? Family leave? In her own words: calling every member of congress she thinks she can persuade and then working with the Republicans who "come to their senses" in order to pass immigration reform with her? (interrobang).
None of these can be accomplished by unilateral executive action, and none of them stand a snowball's chance in the Republican House.
Speaking of DWS, here she is when asked by Jake Tapper to summarize the purpose of superdelegates for uninformed voters who might feel like they rig the process (which in actuality, they do not, but they certainly give the appearance of a rigged system to someone who does not understand them):
Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.
This type of shit is why I wanted Bernie to know how to counter before getting into the primary, because if he can't overcome the DNC and DWS he never stood a chance at being the nominee.
Washington Post is reporting that the DNC has rescinded the Obama Rule against taking lobbyist and PAC money.
I'm not sure I recognize this party anymore.
What, they thought that Sanders needed a little something extra to help flesh out his complaints about the establishment?
This is a good point I saw made somewhere else:
When the Koch Brothers have promised to kick in a billion dollars all by themselves to elect Republicans in 2016, the Democrats are getting a bit concerned with keeping up.
And this is why I don't like Sanders' stance on PACs - because I don't fucking believe in unilateral disarmament.
Washington Post is reporting that the DNC has rescinded the Obama Rule against taking lobbyist and PAC money.
I'm not sure I recognize this party anymore.
What, they thought that Sanders needed a little something extra to help flesh out his complaints about the establishment?
This is a good point I saw made somewhere else:
When the Koch Brothers have promised to kick in a billion dollars all by themselves to elect Republicans in 2016, the Democrats are getting a bit concerned with keeping up.
And this is why I don't like Sanders' stance on PACs - because I don't fucking believe in unilateral disarmament.
So you're saying Obama's Rule was a bad thing, then?
Posts
Nevada is the big wild card at the moment. Caucus, traditionally low turnout. Either candidate definitely has a chance.
If Sanders can claim any degree of victory, this thing runs deep into march at the very least. Even if Clinton wins by Iowa margins, she probably wins SC too and the inevitability narrative starts to take hold.
The idea that Obama had a filibuster-proof supermajority that would have let him do whatever is a myth. Between Franken, Byrd, and Kennedy - to say nothing of Lieberman and the Blue Dogs - Obama never could have gone after Wall Street. Hell, he was barely able to get the watered down version of the ACA we ended up with passed.
But think about it for a second.
Taking your assumptions at face value - a hugely popular Democratic president, elected in a landslide with (in theory) both branches of legislature behind him, at a time that the country was clamoring for Wall Street couldn't or wouldn't punish them.
What makes you think Bernie will be able to? Is it that he really, really wants to?
As for incremental change. I'm not sure who is saying Sanders will act like a petulant child on every single issue, but I haven't really seen anyone say that. He's simply going to have to accept some incremental change because the alternative is no change whatsoever. I think you're reading too much people simply aren't writing.
On the other hand, there have been a few points raised that by starting further left, he'll drag the compromise point further his way than starting closer to the center. Which can be true in some cases, but starting from an unrealistic position getting you more of what you want isn't a universal truth in negotiations. Lots of times, having an unrealistic starting position will get you nothing - it all depends on who you are negotiating with.
Clinton had to do more than eek out a .2% win in Nevada If she wants her inevitability pitch back in any real way. She's only leading with Latinos by 8% nationwide last I saw, and last night's immigrating exchange probably didn't do her any favors there.
Nevada last time went Obama by vote and Clinton by delegate If I recall. If something similar happens this year, Sanders is going to raise $10 million overnight.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
if we're going under the assumption that the Republicans are always going to have a majority then the 18 year olds are right and there's no point in voting
Am I taking crazy pills? Is EVERYONE here of the opinion that Obama only didn't go after Wall Street because he didn't have political capital? Did I imagine Lanny Breuer never investigating for criminal malfeasance or Holder saying we didn't go after them because we were worried about effects on the economy, and it having nothing to do with the administration being unable to do so?
D&D's opinion of the general Democratic Party and Obama in particular sure has improved a lot since Sanders started running - the guy doesn't even have faults anymore
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sanders has closed the gap considerably on momentum, but he still needs more of it to actually win the nomination. In a world where Clinton narrowly wins Nevada, I find it very hard to see a path through primary season where she doesn't win 50.1% of the delegates.
Eta: Maybe I'm misreading it, but Sanders just doesn't look like Obama to me. He doesn't have the demographics to turn out across 50 states without a strong momentum narrative.
Since when?
You see that talking about Sanders and race issues and that's half of what you hear about in my experience.
At this point she has to find a way to blunt his functionally effortless fundraising. One of the huge advantages of small online donor bases is that you don't have to constantly fly back to NYC or LA to meet with donors and that means you can keep campaigning in the actual contested states.
Priorities USA, one of her PACs, was planning on keeping their powder dry for the general, but note they're throwing $4.5 million at an ad buy in SC. Clinton has something like 20 fundraising stops scheduled between now and the 20th. The traditional fundraising model is hugely demanding on the candidate's time. And that's less time for her to be face to face with voters.
If she wants to win this, she needs to stabilize. Functionally tying in a state that she was touting as the focus of her minority outreach two months ago doesn't get that done.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Nevada is also obviously important, but mostly as it relates to South Carolina. Surprised there isn't more Nevada polling currently, only one very low ranked pollster has touched them in the last month.
Except maybe John Lewis
But at the end of the day, my opinion is filtered through the lens that I don't think Sanders is a long-term viable candidate. You can play at this level for a month or two on helium from some positive stories and novelty, as we saw earlier in the process with a guy like Carson. But that support fades once the voters get to know you unless they decide they *really* like you or really respect your leadership abilities. They really liked Obama. I don't think they'll really like Sanders that broadly nor do they expect him to be effective enough to do it. I see him as a Ross Perot type within the primary.
I want Bernie Sanders in the senate. I want him in the primary firing from the left to keep candidates from Clinton from tacking too hard to the center. I want him framing the debate. I'm not sure that I want him leading the executive branch of the United States government and being the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, which he until very recently spurned. And I *think* I can still read the US populace and even the Democratic primary voters well enough that I can see that most of them don't want that either.
So basically I'm positing that Sanders is getting a fairly substantial lift from novelty and momentum at the moment, and if he wants to stay where he is at as the novelty wears off, he needs more wins. Outright wins, not 49.9% moral victories.
I don't think I'm coming at this biased because I never liked Clinton all that much. And if he is polling at 45%+ six weeks from now without winning at least half of the intervening contests, then obviously I was wrong and he has that staying power. But until then, I just can't see it.
Which is not going to happen since congress isn't full of progressives and Bernie isn't supporting a large number getting elected this year. And the centrists remain the power behind the thrown in the Democratic party itself. Bernie being president now changes nothing on these fronts.
Also remember that the Tea Party was founded in response to proposals to bail out mortgage borrowers. God knows what they would have done if anything substansive happened.
Steam: pazython
I guess with this party that might be true, but if I thought that the country was literally going to stay this way forever I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning
But I'm going to chose to believe that if Sanders wins or fuck even if he doesn't, this immense showing of support for liberal ideas will motivate some progressive runs in the house and senate in the next few elections
Stop and take a look around you, 2 years ago Democrats wouldn't even admit they voted for the president, now we have the frontrunner falling over herself to say that she's always been progressive
that's incredible
Uncalled for Rhetoric I think you can do better override.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm a progressive, and Bernie supporter. It isn't about there not being progressives running, it's that there aren't enough to matter to get his agenda enacted. And I haven't seen Bernie support any running lately, have you?
Whose saying it has to stay this way forever? Incremental political change is a thing, and it's always been that way. People here are on your side, they just don't want to be as ambitious or they'll end up burnt. Like what you're going through.
I don't know what you expected from the Dem party, but they're literally the only game in town for the change you want. Asking for the impossible was never going to get you what you want, that road leads to disappointment.
That's what I thought Bernie was originally doing, but nope. By then that's to late to help him. Showing support for liberal ideals is awesome, but for those goals to be real require engagement with real politics and that is messy, frustrating and requires patience. Can't win elections or change the government on hope alone.
Progressivism is about progress, you don't give up on things because they're not going to happen in the next cycle, that's how corporate America thinks and it's why the country is turning into such a shithole
Just because we don't think Sanders is capable of doing the change needed, does not mean we don't want the change.
I am not really sure what your point is besides being angry at the current state of affairs, or who or what posts it is directed at.
I'm not sure I recognize this party anymore.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think that was a horrendously stupid move that Bernie will likely be hammering on.
Also, talk about running away from Obama...
The party on the other hand I hate with the fire of a thousand suns, but what am I going to do vote for Trump?
What, they thought that Sanders needed a little something extra to help flesh out his complaints about the establishment?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Best of luck to both candidates in their primaries, I doubt it'll be competitive anymore by the time I'd be voting anyway.
Cheers
it really is incredible
I don't know how you can look at Obama's staff, with people like Bernanke and Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and say "yeah the only reason they didn't go after Wall Street is because it wasn't politically feasible"
just....what
I'm seeing a lot of saying Sanders is a bad pick because he's too idealistic, but none of Hillary's legislative agenda is going through either, so why isn't any of that thrown back her way?
Furthermore on race, Clinton herself has said that a president can really only deal with the economic realities, why is that exclusively a weapon against Sanders?
I fully accept the criticism that Sanders should have his legislative agenda be realistic (eg: ready to present to congress) when it quite clearly is not, or that he wouldn't be as good of an executive, or that he would have a more antagonistic relationship with the party
but a lot of the language used is borderline identical to the mocking of Obama for being for "hope and change", as if the notion of standing for things because he believes it is the moral thing to do is itself a failing
God yes. I remember she actually tweeted asking why the Republicans hid a recent debate on the weekend and my boyfriend showed me the article talking about it and the title was "Pot tweets kettle." I was amused, but also saddened.
The relevant quote:
Yeah, I think she actually lacks the fundamental capacity for self-reflection, or much reflection at all, actually. Which is why she's (poorly) explaining superdelegates in ways that make it seem even likelier to the base that they're leaning on the primaries and abandoning Obama's Rule in the face of heated opposition to shady campaign financing.
Additionally, Clinton's plans actually do have the support of the Democratic caucus by and large and unlike Sanders, Clinton has a history (even in the 00s) of gaining Republican support for legislation. She also has a much better history of supporting down ticket candidates through campaigning, fundraising and actually holding positions that will play well in swing districts.
Plus again, even if we assumed Sanders agenda not being viable meant Clinton's was likewise DOA, that just indicates we should pick the best administrator with the best ability to run the executive branch. That's pretty clearly Clinton
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Debt-free college? Any of her tax proposals? Expanding Obamacare? Family leave? In her own words: calling every member of congress she thinks she can persuade and then working with the Republicans who "come to their senses" in order to pass immigration reform with her? (interrobang).
None of these can be accomplished by unilateral executive action, and none of them stand a snowball's chance in the Republican House.
This type of shit is why I wanted Bernie to know how to counter before getting into the primary, because if he can't overcome the DNC and DWS he never stood a chance at being the nominee.
This is a good point I saw made somewhere else:
And this is why I don't like Sanders' stance on PACs - because I don't fucking believe in unilateral disarmament.
So you're saying Obama's Rule was a bad thing, then?