What will the Clintoncrats do if Bernie wins nomination?

[Derec]

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

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

I think Comrade Jezza is a real socialist. He is certainly far to the left of (self-described socialist but actually a) social democrat Bernie.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Canada had the Conservative Party in power for a decade while most Canadians are liberals. Their votes were split between the Liberal Party (now headed by Prime Minister Trudeau) and the New Democratic Party (NDP) who is another liberal party alternative to the Liberals. The vote splitting in Canada due to the first past the post system kept Conservatives in power here when their policies were supported by a minority of Canadians. And our big two parties (Liberals and Conservatives) don't hold the same sort of power and sway over our media and election system with gerryrigging as yours do. We're also a parliamentary system.

 

[Derec]

He has zero chance of making anything happen. Hell, he doesn't even have much of a chance of surviving his first term, if elected, in sufficiently good health to do anything at all.

Fair enough, but except for Buttigieg, all the people who have a reasonable chance of getting elected in November are well into their 70s. Biden and Bloomberg are about the same age as Bernie too.
I don't write this to make fun of him but because I actually have seen what 4 years as POTUS does to a much younger, much healthier person than Bernie Sanders has been for the past 30 years or so.

that's not even addressing the question of whether Bernie Sanders could actually make good on ANY of his promises. Because he can't and he couldn't even if he were good at working with other people--which he is not. He himself acknowledges this.

Chances are he would have to moderate many of his proposals to get them through the Congress, yes, but so would Warren. Still, a president has a lot of direct power in many areas, through executive orders, judges, being CinC and thus able to respond to imminent threats (or not), and informally through the bully pulpit.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It strikes me a bid odd that people would point and scream in panic at Trump in the oval office in fear of what he has done and may do, but at the same time claim that Bernie in that same office would have no power to get anything whatsoever done. There are things Bernie could do by executive order. He could appoint a judge or two to the supreme court (with liberal rather than centrist or Republican-lite focus), be "organizer in chief" as he calls it to mobilize other political levers of power, etc.

 

[PyramidHead]

Consider, before writing your "Bernie can't win and won't be able to do anything in office anyway" essay, being honest with yourself and your audience and writing the "I don't want Bernie to win and am opposed to his agenda" essay instead. It's freeing to be honest.

 

[Jarhyn]

It strikes me a bid odd that people would point and scream in panic at Trump in the oval office in fear of what he has done and may do, but at the same time claim that Bernie in that same office would have no power to get anything whatsoever done. There are things Bernie could do by executive order. He could appoint a judge or two to the supreme court (with liberal rather than centrist or Republican-lite focus), be "organizer in chief" as he calls it to mobilize other political levers of power, etc.

Not to mention having a major impact on the DNC itself, setting up a progressive future for what has otherwise been a decaying version of Reaganomics that doesn't explicitly hate gay people or women.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

View attachment 26082

That gif is so well done. I remember what both of those were from too. It was a talk show Bernie was on that he made that movement. He was talking about his grand kids as I recall and had a funny "monster" noise he made to entertain them.

 

[Toni]

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,

NO NO NO NO NO. I said that SANDERS does not have a good record of working with Democrats. Or anybody. It is HIS job to work with Democrats and it will be even more his job to do so if he wins the nomination and the election.

I don't think that he is constitutionally able to do that.

Assuming that Sanders wins the nomination and wins the election, then without first convincing enough of the more conservative Democrats to go along with Sanders' agenda as well as convincing moderates and even progressive Democrats that Sanders' version is the right version, I don't think even a super majority would get Sanders' agenda very far.


And as much as some like to think of the Democrats as being weak willed, they are not nearly as willing to be strong armed into anything as are the Republicans who talk a real tough game but roll over and stick their heads up Trump's butt, hoping for a little bit of last night's corn.

so responding that Democrats are unlikely to get a super majority seemed a bit of a non-sequitur.

Yes because under Sanders' 'leadership' even a super majority won't help Sanders' agenda.

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.

That's all I'm expecting from any of the Democratic candidates. I see almost any of the other candidates as being better suited and more likely to actually advance a more progressive agenda than Sanders with his abrasive spittle spewing pontifications.

All Sanders will do is set us up for a GOP win in 2024.

 

[Toni]

Consider, before writing your "Bernie can't win and won't be able to do anything in office anyway" essay, being honest with yourself and your audience and writing the "I don't want Bernie to win and am opposed to his agenda" essay instead. It's freeing to be honest.

You should try it sometime.

I actually agree with Sanders on most parts of his agenda. I take a really large exception to his cozying up to the NRA but I can live with that. If he were 20 years younger and if I thought he would actually be any good at ushering any of the items on his agenda through, I'd be all in. But frankly, there are other candidates who are as progressive without the nasty NRA connections, who are younger and who: can work well with others, something any good POTUS should be able to do. I think he's the least capable candidate aside from GAbbard and Yang still standing.

I can live with Yang, although I think he'd be a lousy POTUS and I can live with the more moderate candidates because I think that there's only so far the progressive agenda can be pushed in a 4 year term and they ALL have a much better record of working with other people than does Sanders. I don't just think that Sanders would be ineffective; I think he'd trigger a big backlash and we can't afford that.

As far as I can tell, you have imprinted on Sanders and claim him as your mother and will defend him and his right to rule over anything and everything else. Please free yourself and be honest about that.

 

[Derec]

Canada had the Conservative Party in power for a decade while most Canadians are liberals. Their votes were split between the Liberal Party (now headed by Prime Minister Trudeau) and the New Democratic Party (NDP) who is another liberal party alternative to the Liberals. The vote splitting in Canada due to the first past the post system kept Conservatives in power here when their policies were supported by a minority of Canadians. And our big two parties (Liberals and Conservatives) don't hold the same sort of power and sway over our media and election system with gerryrigging as yours do. We're also a parliamentary system.

I understand. My point is that a pretty liberal PM has been in power a while, despite all that. And despite the fact that Tories actually got >200k more votes than Labour.

 

[Politesse]

NO NO NO NO NO. I said that SANDERS does not have a good record of working with Democrats. Or anybody. It is HIS job to work with Democrats and it will be even more his job to do so if he wins the nomination and the election.

I don't think that he is constitutionally able to do that.

Assuming that Sanders wins the nomination and wins the election, then without first convincing enough of the more conservative Democrats to go along with Sanders' agenda as well as convincing moderates and even progressive Democrats that Sanders' version is the right version, I don't think even a super majority would get Sanders' agenda very far.


And as much as some like to think of the Democrats as being weak willed, they are not nearly as willing to be strong armed into anything as are the Republicans who talk a real tough game but roll over and stick their heads up Trump's butt, hoping for a little bit of last night's corn.

so responding that Democrats are unlikely to get a super majority seemed a bit of a non-sequitur.

Yes because under Sanders' 'leadership' even a super majority won't help Sanders' agenda.

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.

That's all I'm expecting from any of the Democratic candidates. I see almost any of the other candidates as being better suited and more likely to actually advance a more progressive agenda than Sanders with his abrasive spittle spewing pontifications.

All Sanders will do is set us up for a GOP win in 2024.

What record, specifically?

 

[Toni]

It strikes me a bid odd that people would point and scream in panic at Trump in the oval office in fear of what he has done and may do, but at the same time claim that Bernie in that same office would have no power to get anything whatsoever done. There are things Bernie could do by executive order. He could appoint a judge or two to the supreme court (with liberal rather than centrist or Republican-lite focus), be "organizer in chief" as he calls it to mobilize other political levers of power, etc.

Trump has the complicity of Congress to cover and enable his destruction of the US Constitution and it’s resources and the fabric of the nation itself.

Sanders will not have that cover.

Nor should he. The Presidency was not designed to be able to rule or overrule by presidential acclamation or by fiat. It was not right when Obama did this and it’s not right that Yrump is and it would be wrong to alllow any future POTUS to do this, either, regardless of whether or not I agree with the policy.

 

[Toni]

NO NO NO NO NO. I said that SANDERS does not have a good record of working with Democrats. Or anybody. It is HIS job to work with Democrats and it will be even more his job to do so if he wins the nomination and the election.



Assuming that Sanders wins the nomination and wins the election, then without first convincing enough of the more conservative Democrats to go along with Sanders' agenda as well as convincing moderates and even progressive Democrats that Sanders' version is the right version, I don't think even a super majority would get Sanders' agenda very far.


And as much as some like to think of the Democrats as being weak willed, they are not nearly as willing to be strong armed into anything as are the Republicans who talk a real tough game but roll over and stick their heads up Trump's butt, hoping for a little bit of last night's corn.



Yes because under Sanders' 'leadership' even a super majority won't help Sanders' agenda.

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.

That's all I'm expecting from any of the Democratic candidates. I see almost any of the other candidates as being better suited and more likely to actually advance a more progressive agenda than Sanders with his abrasive spittle spewing pontifications.

All Sanders will do is set us up for a GOP win in 2024.

What record, specifically?

Sanders’ record for passing/ushering legislation through Congress and working across the aisle for the 115th Congress: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2018

 

[laughing dog]

It strikes me a bid odd that people would point and scream in panic at Trump in the oval office in fear of what he has done and may do, but at the same time claim that Bernie in that same office would have no power to get anything whatsoever done. There are things Bernie could do by executive order. He could appoint a judge or two to the supreme court (with liberal rather than centrist or Republican-lite focus), be "organizer in chief" as he calls it to mobilize other political levers of power, etc.

Any President has wide latitude when it comes to the operation of the executive branch, so a President Sanders would have an effect there.

Legislatively, he would need to have both chambers on his side. Unless the Democrats take the US Senate, it is stalemate time for a President Sanders.

Similarly, the only way a President Sanders could only get a moderate or liberal appointee on the Supreme Court is if the Democrats take the Senate. Anyone recall Merrick Garland?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

but at least he will genuinely try and not just blow smoke up your ass.

That is, quite literally, all he ever does. The only difference is he says, "Yeah, I know I'm blowing smoke up your ass, but I'm doing it to start a conversation about smoke being blown up your ass, so....vote for me."

This is a perfect example as related by a Bernie Bot on Facebook:

51% of Americans feel that way and prefer a totalitarian over a compromising democrat we're done for. Bernie is the only democrat that would be equally uncompromising, but the moderate democrats won't let us have him because he threatens their power structure, right?

It's a built in "get-out-of-failure" free card. Bernie is never wrong. It is only ever the "power structure" that is "threatened" by him and his "radical" ideas. This allows him to say any stupid fucking thing--promise any stupid fucking thing--and it will always be the fault of the "corporatists" or the "establishment" or the "elites" or the "corporate whores" or the or the or the.

It's the lowest of low hanging fruit. Everyone gets a unicorn were it not for the greed of the centrist corporatist ist-ists.

The obvious problem being that HE's precisely one of those he pretends he's not and his policies are effectively identical to the ones that every Democrat has pushed for decades.

He brings nothing new, but because he's playing to ignorance and youth, primarily, who simply don't know what has been going on all around them it seems as if he's the fresh new voice of a generation.

But see, that's the biggest problem. HE KNOWS he isn't. HE KNOWS it's bullshit and that so many others have already pushed the same things he's regurgitating. Yet that isn't stopping him, which makes him a fraud and a huckster.

And his followers clearly understand that as well on some level, which is why they always paint him as the messiah that is destined to be killed because his message is too pure; too mindblowing; too anti-establishment, that "they" (in this case Democrats) won't "let" him win.

Which of course is also bullshit.

So, piles and piles of bullshit, which is why when the smoke cleared in 2015, all he managed to actually motivate to vote for him was 5% of Democrats.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It strikes me a bid odd that people would point and scream in panic at Trump in the oval office in fear of what he has done and may do, but at the same time claim that Bernie in that same office would have no power to get anything whatsoever done.

I can understand your confusion there. You pretend to know about American politics, but then you don't actually bother to pay attention as exhibited by your statement below.

There are things Bernie could do by executive order. He could appoint a judge or two to the supreme court (with liberal rather than centrist or Republican-lite focus), be "organizer in chief" as he calls it to mobilize other political levers of power, etc.

Yeah, Supreme Court Justice Garland agrees with you.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't think JP understands how our system works. Plus, I don't want any president to have as much power as Trump has been enabled to get away with. The power of the presidency has been rising for years. It's time for us to pull it back. We are supposed to have three equal branches of government. The president isn't supposed to be getting away with writing any executive order he/she wants. We don't need another president who thinks he/she is a dictator.

I still have doubts that Sanders will become the nominee. If he does, Trump and his toadies will make mince meat of him. But, don't worry, I'll vote for him if he becomes the nominee, just like I will vote for anyone who becomes the nominee.

I like what several NYTimes pundits have written recently. It pretty much amount to, don't freak out. No Democratic president is going to get anything done unless he/she compromises with the more moderate members of the party. If it's Sanders or somebody else, the outcome will be pretty much the same. Just vote blue.