What will the Clintoncrats do if Bernie wins nomination?

[Jimmy Higgins]

American Politics today isn't in a bubble that is free of influence from the last 40 years.

American politics is what Americans make it. You don't live in a dictatorship quite yet.

The propaganda of AM Radio is very dictatorship like and has gotten worse over the last 40 years. What do you think led to the Tea Party movement in the first place?

The Democrats have to win Presidential elections by millions of more votes to actually win them. They win House mid-terms by 8.6% and gain 41 seats while Republicans win mid-terms by 6.8% and gain 63 seats.

One party has put the nation first, and that is the Democrat Party. Just look at the differences between the reaction of Benghazi and 9/11 from the minority parties or the level of obstruction.

You clearly don't pay attention to any of these details to continue spouting the nonsense about American politics and the Democrats.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It doesn't even matter if Bernie wins. He would not be able to enact his agenda. That's simply a fact. He's spent 40 years not convincing Democrats to do what he wants. Another 4 will not turn the tide for him.

40 years of being an independent congressman. Being president, especially elected as a Democratic president, would make the other democrats much more likely to listen to him. That is unless the Democrats decide they don't care about their own president, their own party's power, and refuse to work together out of spite.

Even in the best of all possible worlds, the Dems aren't getting a super-majority in the Senate.

 

[marc]

It doesn't even matter if Bernie wins. He would not be able to enact his agenda. That's simply a fact. He's spent 40 years not convincing Democrats to do what he wants. Another 4 will not turn the tide for him.

40 years of being an independent congressman. Being president, especially elected as a Democratic president, would make the other democrats much more likely to listen to him. That is unless the Democrats decide they don't care about their own president, their own party's power, and refuse to work together out of spite.

Even in the best of all possible worlds, the Dems aren't getting a super-majority in the Senate.

So is that a reason for Dems to blow off Bernie if he wins?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

American Politics today isn't in a bubble that is free of influence from the last 40 years.

American politics is what Americans make it. You don't live in a dictatorship quite yet.

The propaganda of AM Radio is very dictatorship like and has gotten worse over the last 40 years. What do you think led to the Tea Party movement in the first place?

In the first place? It was a populist movement much like occupy wall street. It got taken over. But yes, I get your point. You've got a tall task a head of you to win the minds of your fellow Americans. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It can still be done, by appealing directly to them and their interests rather than to the politicians and corporations who are herding them. The initial spark that created the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Obama's election, Trump's election, Bernie's popular support all stem very much from the people being sick of and distrustful of Washington and Bay Street oligarchs. This populism has been growing stronger over time. If you can harness it for good and stop it from being coopted (as the Tea Party was) then you've got a real chance here to make a difference.

One party has put the nation first, and that is the Democrat Party.

That's highly debatable. I don't think either of your parties has put your nation first since FDR. Its just a matter of bad, bought and corrupt vs even more so. I think its high time you changed that.

You clearly don't pay attention to any of these details to continue spouting the nonsense about American politics and the Democrats.

Yes I do. And I see it from the outside of it and with no personal stake in it and no cloud on my judgment due to the partisanship and propaganda there.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even in the best of all possible worlds, the Dems aren't getting a super-majority in the Senate.

So is that a reason for Dems to blow off Bernie if he wins?

Did RayJ hit some sort of switch which is transforming almost every post at TF as a strawman? Making it why people seem incapable of reading any context into what people are responding to?

Sanders isn't going to have Congress that'll support anything too wide is scope. He needs 60 votes in the Senate, that won't happen. ACA barely passed the House and the Dems had a sizable majority there. This doesn't mean Sanders should be tossed out on the trash heap, it means people need to remain calm and not panic, and understand this is a Representative Democracy (which an uber-partisan GOP who'll let the Earth burn before letting a Democrat have a decent economy). There will be no economic revolution, Sanders can only enhance (and maybe expand) the safety nets. Higher minimum wage, reshore up ACA (expand if possible, but unlikely), some support in college with Warren being the new Sec. of Education.

If people stop talking revolution now, it'll be easier to get Sanders through a General Election later.

 

[ZiprHead]

American Politics today isn't in a bubble that is free of influence from the last 40 years.

American politics is what Americans make it. You don't live in a dictatorship quite yet.

The propaganda of AM Radio is very dictatorship like and has gotten worse over the last 40 years. What do you think led to the Tea Party movement in the first place?

Check out this Lewis Prothero wannabe.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/Cw43ncrRFUA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One party has put the nation first, and that is the Democrat Party.

That's highly debatable.

No, it's not.

I don't think either of your parties has put your nation first since FDR.

Yeah, you haven't paid attention over the last few decades with American politics.

You clearly don't pay attention to any of these details to continue spouting the nonsense about American politics and the Democrats.

Yes I do. And I see it from the outside of it and with no personal stake in it and no cloud on my judgment due to the partisanship and propaganda there.

Cute. Then why with all the Moore-Coulter then?

 

[Toni]

The propaganda of AM Radio is very dictatorship like and has gotten worse over the last 40 years. What do you think led to the Tea Party movement in the first place?

In the first place? It was a populist movement much like occupy wall street. It got taken over. But yes, I get your point. You've got a tall task a head of you to win the minds of your fellow Americans. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It can still be done, by appealing directly to them and their interests rather than to the politicians and corporations who are herding them. The initial spark that created the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Obama's election, Trump's election, Bernie's popular support all stem very much from the people being sick of and distrustful of Washington and Bay Street oligarchs. This populism has been growing stronger over time. If you can harness it for good and stop it from being coopted (as the Tea Party was) then you've got a real chance here to make a difference.

One party has put the nation first, and that is the Democrat Party.

That's highly debatable. I don't think either of your parties has put your nation first since FDR. Its just a matter of bad, bought and corrupt vs even more so. I think its high time you changed that.

You clearly don't pay attention to any of these details to continue spouting the nonsense about American politics and the Democrats.

Yes I do. And I see it from the outside of it and with no personal stake in it and no cloud on my judgment due to the partisanship and propaganda there.

You certainly do have your own special set of goggles on.

 

[PyramidHead]

tOxIc SuPpOrT oh no whatever shall we do

Do you have any idea how you come across? Very few people in America are voting for a revolution. Your anger, abrassivity, and hostility will not bring a single person to Sanders' side. You'll do nothing but positively project the radical label onto Sanders that Trump and the GOP want people to think of when they hear of Sanders.

I am not here to bring people to Sanders' side. This forum is already beyond hope for the most part. But it's funny how the tactics of his supporters have been so toxic and abrasive since 2016, and all the man has to show for it is consistently growing in momentum, topping the predictive markets and the polls, raising historic amounts of money, marshaling new segments of the population to get into politics, and creating unprecedented levels of hand-wringing from the centrists who are on the verge of losing their power to dictate what is and isn't possible. He has exceeded every expectation that he would be unpopular with women, with minorities, and with young people (who were forecasted to respectively flock to Warren, Castro, and O'Rourke). He shows no signs of slowing down, and his two biggest competitors for the entire race are cratering. By all accounts, Sanders supporters being unapologetic and unequivocal about his agenda online is serving him well, wouldn't you say?

 

[marc]

Even in the best of all possible worlds, the Dems aren't getting a super-majority in the Senate.

So is that a reason for Dems to blow off Bernie if he wins?

Did RayJ hit some sort of switch which is transforming almost every post at TF as a strawman? Making it why people seem incapable of reading any context into what people are responding to?

Sanders isn't going to have Congress that'll support anything too wide is scope. He needs 60 votes in the Senate, that won't happen. ACA barely passed the House and the Dems had a sizable majority there. This doesn't mean Sanders should be tossed out on the trash heap, it means people need to remain calm and not panic, and understand this is a Representative Democracy (which an uber-partisan GOP who'll let the Earth burn before letting a Democrat have a decent economy). There will be no economic revolution, Sanders can only enhance (and maybe expand) the safety nets. Higher minimum wage, reshore up ACA (expand if possible, but unlikely), some support in college with Warren being the new Sec. of Education.

If people stop talking revolution now, it'll be easier to get Sanders through a General Election later.

I was responding to Toni's statement of Democrats not working with Sanders in the past, so responding that Democrats are unlikely to get a super majority seemed a bit of a non-sequitur.

I am not expecting a revolutionary change to all of government. I'm expecting him to push for the policies I want, and at the very least through negotiation and deal making we might be able to get some good gains in those areas. Which is far preferable to pre-conceding on them, start off with compromised positions, and then giving in on them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

tOxIc SuPpOrT oh no whatever shall we do

Do you have any idea how you come across? Very few people in America are voting for a revolution. Your anger, abrassivity, and hostility will not bring a single person to Sanders' side. You'll do nothing but positively project the radical label onto Sanders that Trump and the GOP want people to think of when they hear of Sanders.

I am not here to bring people to Sanders' side.

Well, then you don't need to worry about a thing then. Because you are doing a wonderful job of doing otherwise.

This forum is already beyond hope for the most part. But it's funny how the tactics of his supporters have been so toxic and abrasive since 2016, and all the man has to show for it is consistently growing in momentum, topping the predictive markets and the polls, raising historic amounts of money, marshaling new segments of the population to get into politics, and creating unprecedented levels of hand-wringing from the centrists who are on the verge of losing their power to dictate what is and isn't possible.

How much of that is true?

• consistently growing in momentum (he went from being in a tight two-way race for the Presidency to a tight two-way race for the Presidency... is this really growing momentum?
• topping the predictive markets and the polls (it took some rat phucking to get Biden down from the top, that wasn't Sanders seizing the reins)
• raising historic amounts of money (Obama and Clinton raised over $100 million for primaries, Sanders is what $35 million?)
• marshaling new segments of the population to get into politics (this was not witnessed in the Iowa Caucus where turnout was actually lower than in 2016, and there wasn't widespread new turnout for Sanders)
• creating unprecedented levels of hand-wringing from the centrists (this isn't exactly anything of note)

He has exceeded every expectation that he would be unpopular with women, with minorities, and with young people (who were forecasted to respectively flock to Warren, Castro, and O'Rourke).

Yeah, he did much better in 2016 than anyone thought. That was 2016... and he didn't get the nomination, though he did coordinate with Clinton after, which got a good deal of his platform into the DNC platform. Sanders didn't burn the bridges, like you want to.

He shows no signs of slowing down, and his two biggest competitors for the entire race are cratering.

Two biggest at the time. Now he has Buttigieg and Bloomberg. Still liking the comical idea of a Sanders-Bloomberg ticket.

By all accounts, Sanders supporters being unapologetic and unequivocal about his agenda online is serving him well, wouldn't you say?

No... I wouldn't. Sanders supporters that are backing him could be helping, if they aren't warning of burning down the DNC if they lose or the capitalistic system if they win.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am not expecting a revolutionary change to all of government. I'm expecting him to push for the policies I want, and at the very least through negotiation and deal making we might be able to get some good gains in those areas. Which is far preferable to pre-conceding on them, start off with compromised positions, and then giving in on them.

Very well said. Reach high and then you may get something. Fail to reach and you'll get nothing. That's ironically, the art of the deal.

 

[PyramidHead]

This disconnect is real and overcoming it will be a challenge.

In the liberal political imagination, there are only rigid unbreakable political institutions. Swings in public opinion, contentious politics, and popular forms of power all fade to the back in favor of the cold iron cage of Schoolhouse Rock's How a Bill Becomes a Law.

He was responding to Ezra Klein, but the same sentiment is expressed here every single day, with the way things are as a static backdrop instead of something we have the power to shape.

 

[ZiprHead]

He certainly won't be able to if you and your fellow "liberals" don't make any effort to make the change with him. The president alone doesn't have the power to make the change. It will depend on you. And if you stick with "why bother trying" then it will never change. Learned helplessness is a sad thing to observe.

Its like your nation's optimism all died with Obama's administration. He spoke of hope and change and it won you the election. Hillary's response to "Make American Great Again" was "America's Already Great". Her response to Bernie's bold vision was "No magical ponies" and "No, we Can't" instead of Oabma's "Yes we can" and her response to Trump was "I'm not him; He's bad so vote for me to avoid him". She lost for it.

To win the left needs a message of something to vote FOR. Bernie provides that. Yang provides that. Warren provides that. The clintoncrats like Biden, no so much.

It doesn't even matter if Bernie wins. He would not be able to enact his agenda. That's simply a fact. He's spent 40 years not convincing Democrats to do what he wants. Another 4 will not turn the tide for him.

Sorry, but I do not agree with this at this time. Yes, his position has been the same for forty years and has gotten little traction with it previously. But this is not the past. Sanders has a lot of support now, not because of himself but because his platform has become popular. That popularity gives him clout with congress persons under him.

Frankly, his platform is quite similar to FDR's who also couldn't get it enacted. But no one claims FDR was ineffective.

 

[Toni]

He certainly won't be able to if you and your fellow "liberals" don't make any effort to make the change with him. The president alone doesn't have the power to make the change. It will depend on you. And if you stick with "why bother trying" then it will never change. Learned helplessness is a sad thing to observe.

Its like your nation's optimism all died with Obama's administration. He spoke of hope and change and it won you the election. Hillary's response to "Make American Great Again" was "America's Already Great". Her response to Bernie's bold vision was "No magical ponies" and "No, we Can't" instead of Oabma's "Yes we can" and her response to Trump was "I'm not him; He's bad so vote for me to avoid him". She lost for it.

To win the left needs a message of something to vote FOR. Bernie provides that. Yang provides that. Warren provides that. The clintoncrats like Biden, no so much.

It doesn't even matter if Bernie wins. He would not be able to enact his agenda. That's simply a fact. He's spent 40 years not convincing Democrats to do what he wants. Another 4 will not turn the tide for him.

Sorry, but I do not agree with this at this time. Yes, his position has been the same for forty years and has gotten little traction with it previously. But this is not the past. Sanders has a lot of support now, not because of himself but because his platform has become popular. That popularity gives him clout with congress persons under him.

Frankly, his platform is quite similar to FDR's who also couldn't get it enacted. But no one claims FDR was ineffective.

Quite frankly the only big difference fference betweenhis platform and Warren’s is Sanders’s support for and from the NRA. Frankly most of the other candidates also support mostly progressive policies mostly differing on how to
implement universal health care and universal education pre-K through college.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sorry, but I do not agree with this at this time. Yes, his position has been the same for forty years and has gotten little traction with it previously. But this is not the past. Sanders has a lot of support now, not because of himself but because his platform has become popular. That popularity gives him clout with congress persons under him.

Frankly, his platform is quite similar to FDR's who also couldn't get it enacted. But no one claims FDR was ineffective.

Quite frankly the only big difference fference betweenhis platform and Warren’s is Sanders’s support for and from the NRA. Frankly most of the other candidates also support mostly progressive policies mostly differing on how to
implement universal health care and universal education pre-K through college.

I agree and I'm supporting Warren at this time. I supported Sanders the last time but he's now four years older and just had a heart attack.

I also suspect both Biden and especially Buitegedg would sign MFA legislation if it made it to their desk, even though they don't support it at this time. The legislation has to come from the legislators to get anything done.

 

[Derec]

Because that works out so well for Canada or Great Britain.

Nominating a socialist certainly didn't work out well for Labour.

Splitting the left vote across two "left" parties is how you get Tories.

LibDems are not really left and last I checked Fidel Castro's love child is still PM of Canada, and he is Labour, not Tory.

Instead, the focus MUST be on pushing the liberal party left.

That's how you get a Trump 2nd term. With not only an EV landslide (map painted red, but not the kind of red you want), but this time also with popular vote plurality and probably even majority (something Hillary didn't have in 2016).

He is not just making an honest bid for president, though his bid IS honest: he's making a bid to change the party itself. Because in a FPTP democracy, you can't realistically run third party for president.

Duverger's Law, yes. Exceptions being regional parties like SNP and some entrenched exceptions like LibDems who however consistently get far fewer seats than their vote share.
At the same time, that means that means that the two major parties will each represent a big swath of society, which is not very conducive to radical takeover while also winning the general election. Even Trump campaigned as a moderate.

 

[ZiprHead]

Nominating a socialist certainly didn't work out well for Labour.

Says the guy who gets pedantic when others use the word socialist wrong.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Klobuchar has actually taken in less money from the health insurance industry than Biden or Buttigieg. While I would not hold it against anyone to take campaign donations from health care workers themselves, Buttigieg has actually taken campaign donations from health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. That calls into question his motivations to adding "all who want it" to "Medicare for all". He has a motivation to keep the insurance companies in business and to keep pharmaceutical companies from having restrictions put on their profits due to collective bargaining as they have to do in many other nations around the world. Buttigieg also has held fundraisers with the pharma industry. President Pete is bad news for them as compared to Trump, but good news for them as compared to Bernie or Warren.

Buttigieg is runner-up, taking home nearly $94,000. His list of donors includes executives from Aetna, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Indiana’s Eli Lilly & Co. The Midwestern mayor has questioned the merits of Medicare for All, but has also put forth his own plan, Medicare for Those Who Want It, which the healthcare industry also opposes.

After HuffPost reported earlier this year that Buttigieg was the only major candidate in the 2020 presidential race accepting lobbyist donations, his campaign announced in April that he would no longer take donations from federal lobbyists and would return money he had collected from them.

But Buttigieg, like other members of the Democratic primary field, is still taking cash from people aiming to influence politicians. The fundraisers show the limits of no-lobbyist-fund pledges, and how Buttigieg’s imposing fundraising ― he raised an impressive $19 million in the third quarter of 2019 ― relies, in part, on the type of high-dollar fundraising shunned by two other leading contenders to challenge President Donald Trump.

Medicare for All is different, McDonough said, because there isn’t as much room for lawmakers to make concessions. Depending on the version of the bill, it would likely create stricter regulation on drug prices, eliminate the need for some private insurers and cut the bottom line for hospitals that rely on private insurance reimbursement rates.
“When you point a gun at somebody and say ‘we’re gonna kill you,’ don’t be surprised when they fight like it’s life or death,” McDonough said. “The ACA was not life or death for the insurance industry. Medicare for All is a death notice for a large chunk of the U.S. healthcare industry and they know it.”

An insurance industry insider told The Hill in 2018 that the group had originally planned to stop Medicare for All from becoming a litmus test for Democrats in 2020. The Intercept obtained an internal document noting its lobbyists were successful in getting congressional Democratic candidates to adopt the partnership’s “moderate” position on health care such as improving the Affordable Care Act.

That strategy didn’t appear to work among Democratic presidential candidates though, as many major 2020 contenders, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), support the health care overhaul.

 

[Derec]

There are more than 2 parties in the US.

And all of them, except GOP and Dems, are absolute non-factors in our system, except as spoilers. To have a proper multiparty system, you would have to reform the electoral system. For example by making all states at-large districts with proportional representation and a corresponding increase in House members so every state has at least three seats.

You know how I know? I am a US citizen who is registered to vote and I vote.

Just because Jolly is Canadian doesn't mean he does not understand US system. Lay off the "ugly American" shtick; it doesn't become you.

And when I read the ballot, I see candidates affiliated with several different parties.

You don't say. There is a big difference between ballot access and having a reasonable chance of success. The US system is such that smaller parties usually play a role of spoiler, reducing the chance of the party closer to their positions winning the election. Example: Ralph Nader helping Bush win against Gore.

Time was when the Republicans were the progressive party in the US. Parties do change. Bernie and his bros aren't interested in changing the Democratic party and making it 'more progressive.' They are interested in cashing in on the fundraising that the Democratic party has built and using its name. That's not the same thing as moving the party left.

What evidence do you have for that?

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to US politics and the political system.

Judging from this post, he may know more than you.

If you're actually interested in participating in the US political system, then you can apply immigrate, apply for a green card, become a citizen and then you can vote.

He can still express his opinion without doing any of these things.