The Sanders Movement

[Willie71]

Socialist idealism is unsustainable under capitalism, which drives the American economy. A capitalist economy assure a capitalist will be President. Bernie is a socialist whose proposals will be much more difficult to push through congress than those of Clintons. Given the choices, the candidate most likely to win in a capitalist environment and push his/her agenda through a capitalist congress is Clinton. Unless the American people and economy changes over night to socialism, Bernie will not win if he's the nominee--which leaves Clinton and her agenda as our only recourse for governance somewhat concerned with the 99%. The American people may want change but they don't want to pay more or sacrifice their security to have it, which socialism connotes. Regardless of Clinton's GOP devised negative baggage, she has the potential to inspire American voters in ways Bernie cannot as did Obama vs Clinton. He was a first among firsts for this country as she would be as the nominee.

Here we go again. What do you believe Bernie's "socialism" is? We have it in Canada. It's used all across Europe. We have capitalism and elections.

[overtone]

Socialist idealism is unsustainable under capitalism, which drives the American economy. A capitalist economy assure a capitalist will be President. Bernie is a socialist whose proposals will be much more difficult to push through congress than those of Clintons. Given the choices, the candidate most likely to win in a capitalist environment and push his/her agenda through a capitalist congress is Clinton

It warms my heart to see that innocence and faith are not dead, but if capitalist ideology had anything to do with the behavior of the current Republican Congress Obama would have owned it like Napoleon. For example: He got his health care plan straight from Mitt Romney, who cribbed most of his from Bob Dole's Republican plan in '93 - but did the Republicans welcome Obama unto their bandwagon? Not at all - they ran from their own legislation like it had rabies.

 

Republican Senators filibustered their own bills, if Obama endorsed them. Clinton's ideology has nothing to do with it.

 

Meanwhile, the average American wants more, not less, socialism in their government. And speaking of that,

 

the only "wins" Clinton has ever obtained have been (from the majority US poll pov) what the soccer folks call "own goals". There are two ways to interpret this: continual defeat, or an agenda quite different from anything liberal or left. I'm going with door number 2.

 

And - just for the record - calling out the influence money and pushing for reform is not "idealism" of any kind: it's a solidly cynical take on the current operations of Congress.

Edited March 3, 2016 by overtone

[MigL]

The way I see it ( as if anyone cares ), American liberals are roughly split on a Clinton or Sanders presidency.

American conservatives on the other hand, want the change Trump represents, but don't really want Trump ( and couldn't care less about the other Republicans ).

The conservatives may just decide to vote Democrat. But which of the two can they stomach ?

 

We have on this forum, a couple of conservative leaning individuals. Certainly not fanatics but rather moderate conservatives. And do you recall Tar calling B. Sanders a commie?

If even moderate conservatives have that impression of him ( justified or not ), do you think they would rally behind him ? I don't think so. But they may find H. Clinton more palatable ( and certainly safer than having Trump in the White House ).

 

If she can pull some conservative support as well as liberal, she has areal shot at being able to work with both sides.

The best presidents represent all ( or at least most ) of the populace, not just the half that voted for them.

And real change only comes about when ( almost ) everyone is on-board.

Edited March 3, 2016 by MigL

[overtone]

 

 

We have on this forum, a couple of conservative leaning individuals. Certainly not fanatics but rather moderate conservatives. And do you recall Tar calling B. Sanders a commie?

If even moderate conservatives have that impression of him ( justified or not ), do you think they would rally behind him ? I don't think so. But they may find H. Clinton more palatable ( and certainly safer than having Trump in the White House ).

The wingnuts hate Hillary to the point of mild derangement, and the Republicans in Congress have no more inclination to work with her than with Obama. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

 

 

If she can pull some conservative support as well as liberal, she has areal shot at being able to work with both sides.

Where is she going to get liberal support for rolling back the New Deal and lowering taxes on the rich? Because that's what the Reps want to do, and it's pretty much all they want to do.

 

The best presidents represent all ( or at least most ) of the populace, not just the half that voted for them.

And real change only comes about when ( almost ) everyone is on-board.

That's not how FDR did it, or Lincoln, or even Lyndon Johnson. That's not how we got civil rights, or union rights, or any of the nice things.

[DrmDoc]

It warms my heart to see that innocence and faith are not dead, but if capitalist ideology had anything to do with the behavior of the current Republican Congress Obama would have owned it like Napoleon. For example: He got his health care plan straight from Mitt Romney, who cribbed most of his from Bob Dole's Republican plan in '93 - but did the Republicans welcome Obama unto their bandwagon? Not at all - they ran from their own legislation like it had rabies.

 

Republican Senators filibustered their own bills, if Obama endorsed them. Clinton's ideology has nothing to do with it.

 

Meanwhile, the average American wants more, not less, socialism in their government. And speaking of that,

 

the only "wins" Clinton has ever obtained have been (from the majority US poll pov) what the soccer folks call "own goals". There are two ways to interpret this: continual defeat, or an agenda quite different from anything liberal or left. I'm going with door number 2.

 

And - just for the record - calling out the influence money and pushing for reform is not "idealism" of any kind: it's a solidly cynical take on the current operations of Congress.

 

It is the American people who will elect a capitalist President not Congress. It isn't the willingness of Congress to work with a candidate that decides who becomes President. That person is someone whose rhetoric and public persona inspires the populace above and beyond the political vitriol with a sense of calm, control, and command one might expect of a parent. I think this translate as stability and security to the American public. Although this might not apply to the Primary Elections, it certainly has to the General Election. Of the Democrats, which nominee do you think conveys that sense of calm, control, and command? That person, I think, has the best chance to be POTUS.

Edited March 4, 2016 by DrmDoc

[MigL]

The wingnuts hate everybody, Overtone, but a moderate conservative ( like Tar ? ) could put up with H. Clinton.

Political polarization based in ideology, not issues, is higher than its ever been. Its time to try and reverse that trend.

 

And since you're always bringing up past presidents, and how rosy things were under their watch, please tell me...

How good did black Americans have it under FDR, Lincoln or even Johnson ?

How about the civil rights of oriental Americans during WW2 ?

How about the unionizing efforts of the Irish and Italians during the first half of the century ?

 

Or are you just talking about the 'nice things' for 'real' Americans ?

 

If you're willing to marginalize a portion of the American populace so the rest can have nice things, if you're willing to spew hate and fear based solely on a liberal or conservative ideology, then Donald Trump has a position for you as his campaign manager.

Edited March 4, 2016 by MigL

[Phi for All]

And since you're always bringing up past presidents, and how rosy things were under their watch, please tell me...

How good did black Americans have it under FDR, Lincoln or even Johnson ?

How about the civil rights of oriental Americans during WW2 ?

How about the unionizing efforts of the Irish and Italians during the first half of the century ?

 

I don't get this at all, MigL. Are you saying that overtone claimed it was easy to maintain these movements? I know he didn't, so it seems like you're claiming we shouldn't have tried because there were obstacles.

 

Are you claiming that? This seems like a bizarre tack to take. "Things weren't perfect under those presidents, so that 'movement' stuff they did doesn't count". That's the way this comes off.

[Willie71]

One of Sanders' biggest hurdles is overcoming the defeatism that is being sold to them by Clinton and the media, it's truly bizarre to run on a campaign of "don't ask for much because you won't get it, and that's what I bring to the table!"

Edited March 4, 2016 by Willie71

[MigL]

No, I'm saying it shouldn't be ( but it is ) a 'winner take all" contest.

The president should represent ALL people, not just those that support him/her.

As for FDR, Lincoln and Johnson, I'm of the opinion that things are better for some groups today than they were. I'm not implying rolling anything back, phi, and give credit where credit is due. But the biggest obstacle seems ( to me anyway ) to be that presidents cannot achieve the change they promise because of opposition. Obama certainly didn't fail at many of his promises for lack of trying.

 

B. Sanders will certainly have the support of most liberals across the US, but very few conservatives.

H. Clinton will have the support of most liberals, but also a fair percentage of reasonable conservatives.

One will have support of approx. 50% of the populace, the other could have up to 75%.

Who do you think will have less opposition to implementing their agenda ?

 

Now if you think like Overtone, and claim she's as bad as Republicans, then you've admitted the Democrats have their own wingnuts.

 

Its a matter of Sanders not being able to achieve a lot of his 'lofty' goals, and Clinton being able to achieve most of her somewhat less ambitious goals, Willie.

[overtone]

The wingnuts hate everybody, Overtone, but a moderate conservative ( like Tar ? ) could put up with H. Clinton.

As we just saw for eight years with Obama, there are no such moderate conservatives in the Republican Congress. Whether there are any in the general Republican Party remains to be demonstrated - they appear to be mostly Democrats, in real life.

 

 

Political polarization based in ideology, not issues, is higher than its ever been. Its time to try and reverse that trend.

There is no "polarization" based in ideology. The only trend is the increasing power of fascism within the Republican Party, and through it the American government. The only way to "reverse" that "trend" is to vote many Republican Congressmen out of office.

The president should represent ALL people, not just those that support him/her.

How, exactly, should a US President sworn to uphold the Constitution represent the KKK faction, otherwise known as the Tea Party, or - more accurately - the Republican base?

 

 

H. Clinton will have the support of most liberals, but also a fair percentage of reasonable conservatives.

Clinton might well have less support from the Republicans in Congress than Obama had. And she will not - or should not - have the support of "most liberals" for her military ventures backing Israel and Big Oil, her trade deals and tax breaks favoring Wall Street and Walmart, or her predictable rollbacks of Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, and the like.

Its a matter of Sanders not being able to achieve a lot of his 'lofty' goals, and Clinton being able to achieve most of her somewhat less ambitious goals,

Sanders would be more likely to achieve Clinton's supposed and achievable goals than Clinton. He would be negotiating from a stronger position, and his compromises would be made from a stronger initial stance. He is also likely to pick up support from those who prefer actions taken in accordance with solid and reliable principles they disagree with, over actions taken from shifting grounds of expediency however temporarily congenial.

 

We have seen that often since the Vietnam War, when "transactional politics" came into vogue: a fair proportion of Americans wanted to either get in completely and fight it to the wall, or get out completely and let the chips fall. Either way, but decide and do it. That's a common American political position, and Sanders can count on significant support from it.

Now if you think like Overtone, and claim she's as bad as Republicans, then you've admitted the Democrats have their own wingnuts.

Absolutely and completely false. I have specifically stated, many times, that Clinton is a moderate rightwing authoritarian, equivalent to an Eisenhower Republican, and that such a stance is not an extreme one, and that I would vote for Clinton over any Republican in contention without hesitation. Eisenhower was not a wingnut. Moderate conservatism is not wingnuttery. Clinton is not "as bad as Republicans" - nowhere near.

Edited March 4, 2016 by overtone

[Phi for All]

H. Clinton will have the support of most liberals, but also a fair percentage of reasonable conservatives.

 

Reasonable conservatives, the oxymoron we're ALL looking for!

 

I don't know a single Republican of any stripe right now that thinks Hillary Clinton deserves more than a stake to which she should be tied and burned. The ones I've talked to freely admit she'll get less done than Obama with the degenerate Congress they've proudly set up. I think the best she'll be able to do with Republicans is keep them home on election day, since they won't want to pull the lever on her or Trump.

[iNow]

Reasonable conservatives, the oxymoron we're ALL looking for!

FWIW, I've found a multitude of morons I'd very much like to deoxygenate. Does that count?

[Willie71]

The media is remaining a major hurdle for Sanders to overcome. Even after winning two out of three states yesterday, and doing 45 points better than the polling from two weeks ago in Kansas, the media is minimizing Sanders performance.

 

[Phi for All]

The media is remaining a major hurdle for Sanders to overcome. Even after winning two out of three states yesterday, and doing 45 points better than the polling from two weeks ago in Kansas, the media is minimizing Sanders performance.

 

I just got a message from a Sanders delegate who is also a good friend. Here's the real delegate count as of March 2:

 

Clinton - 595

Sanders - 405

 

The media is falling for Hillary's historic trick of counting super-delegate "promises" in her total. We know for a fact that when she did this in 2008, these "promised" votes mostly went to Obama as the front-runner in the end.

 

Sanders is still a heavy contender.

[Willie71]

I think after last night, Sanders needs some major upsets. The states most strongly favouring Clinton are done. If Sanders won three states last night with greater than a 5 point margin, and was within 15 points in Florida, Sanders would be the favorite to win in my mind. Reality is they basically tied two states, and Clinton won by good margins in the other three. It's a pretty big deficit to overcome. It's not impossible. A new scandal, major injury, or God forbid an assassination could change things instantly though. The dirty politics Clinton and the media have been playing work against them for the general, and they will be competing with a group much more experienced in dirty politics whether it is Cruz or Trump.

 

Sanders should stay in the race for sure, especially with New York and California having enough delegates to swing it back of there is a surge in momentum. A lot of things have to go right for Sanders for that to happen. I'm hoping, but am only cautiously pessimistic.

[Phi for All]

I think after last night, Sanders needs some major upsets.

If Sanders could drop a bombshell based on his own stances, put together something that would capture the attention of the average Trump voter, it could force the media to cover him more effectively. The media will always go after a story that keeps viewers viewing.

 

A new scandal, major injury, or God forbid an assassination could change things instantly though.

 

Oh man, don't even think it. Our system of dealing with major national political disasters is not as robust as it was in 1968. Our Congress isn't well-respected enough to give believable solace if someone involved in politics or associated with it were to be assassinated today. The only reasonable voice might come from the White House, where it will only be 51% effective, based on his current approval rating.

[overtone]

The dirty politics Clinton and the media have been playing work against them for the general, and they will be competing with a group much more experienced in dirty politics whether it is Cruz or Trump.

Nobody is more experienced in dirty politics than the Clintons. A lot of people regard that as one of her major strengths - not at all sarcastically.

 

If this situation had been guaranteed four months ago, it would be regarded as a sign of Sanders having set himself up very well from where he started - if he keeps gaining ground as he has, that is if current trends continue rather than plateauing as all stat projections assume, he will actually take the lead in won delegates sometime on June 7th.

 

That is unlikely, of course. But very far from impossible.

Edited March 16, 2016 by overtone

[Willie71]

Nobody is more experienced in dirty politics than the Clintons. A lot of people regard that as one of her major strengths - not at all sarcastically.

 

If this situation had been guaranteed four months ago, it would be regarded as a sign of Sanders having set himself up very well from where he started - if he keeps gaining ground as he has, that is if current trends continue rather than plateauing as all stat projections assume, he will actually take the lead in won delegates sometime on June 7th.

 

That is unlikely, of course. But very far from impossible.

 

I have been thinking about this quite a bit. "Is it really as improbable as it seems?" Clinton is now out of her highest support states. We'll see how Bernie does now. Nate Silver thinks he has a good chance of winning the next nine states. Bernie did not concede anything in his speech last night either. I did not see any indication of hopelessness. It was business as usual, and move on to the next states. Maybe his campaign knows something we don't. It might just be good showmanship, but I did see worry in Clinton last week. I'm not counting Bernie out, but it will be a hell of an upset if he's successful.

[Delta1212]

I don't think Bernie has a shot at this any longer. He's done far better than expected thus far, but there's a difference between beating expectations and winning. Unlike the GOO, the Democrats have all proportional delegate assignments, which means merely winning states is not going to be enough. Sanders doesn't just have to win in the remaining states, he has to win big. I don't think he's going to be able to do that consistently enough to make up the ground he needs.

[DrmDoc]

I don't think Bernie has a shot at this any longer. He's done far better than expected thus far, but there's a difference between beating expectations and winning. Unlike the GOO, the Democrats have all proportional delegate assignments, which means merely winning states is not going to be enough. Sanders doesn't just have to win in the remaining states, he has to win big. I don't think he's going to be able to do that consistently enough to make up the ground he needs.

I agree.

[overtone]

 

 

Sanders doesn't just have to win in the remaining states, he has to win big. I don't think he's going to be able to do that consistently enough to make up the ground he needs.

- - -

I agree.

Everybody agrees it's unlikely.

On the other hand, if current trends continue exactly as they have - Sanders gaining support over time at the same rate among the same demographic groups, not plateaued yet - he will acquire a slim majority of the earned delegates on June 7th. He will do that by getting more than 60% of the vote in California, for example, where he is now polling iirc in the 40%s.

The likelihood is that future gains will not be as easy or as quick as the initial surge, and Sanders will bog down around 50% or so and lose. But it's not a single digit percentage bet, at the moment.

And given his effect on Clinton's rhetoric and positions, Sanders has every reason to continue even a losing effort - there's a chance he can corner her into taking some actual leftwing and liberal stances, to beat him, which would be a good thing for the country if not for Sanders himself.

[Willie71]

I'm still watching the race closely. I love rooting for the underdog. 👍😜

Edited March 17, 2016 by Willie71

[Phi for All]

I can't help but think much of the nay-saying about Sanders is because of the makeup of Congress. It's critical for a Sanders Movement to gain as much control of Congress as possible, otherwise he'll get his intellectually-based legislation blocked worse than Obama. And perhaps Sanders isn't addressing this enough, not pushing for the states to give him the necessary seats to get a majority.

 

On the other hand, if Congress were to get shaken up, but Clinton wins, I shudder to think what kinds of largesse the oil, banking, and telecommunications industries will enjoy at taxpayer's ultimate expense. Sanders needs a clear road for all his changes, but I think Clinton wouldn't change enough that's bad, and would introduce a lot more bad if she's unopposed by Congress, and has the full backing of the corporate-owned media.

 

At a time when NPR should get some serious attention as an informative source of untainted journalism, I don't think Clinton will help.

[Willie71]

This really puzzles me, the American populace. They say they would rather have a rebranded Reagan in the White House because it's more likely to get those policies passed, than elect someone who actually shares their ideals. I just can't wrap my brain around how that makes sense, beyond having blind faith in her temporary shift to the left to debate sanders. Let's vote for someone we dislike a lot, because they won't screw it up as bad as Cruz or Trump, but we won't vote for someone offering what we want, with an outlined path to get those things done.

[MigL]

Its like two people offering you a chance to win money.

One offers you a 50% chance to win $10.

The second offers you a 5% chance to win $100.

 

Obviously it would be better to win the $100.

But most people ( not all ) see the unlikelihood of that happening and choose the first option.

 

Assuming predictions hold true and nothing unforeseen happens to shake up the Democratic race, what are the chances of B. Sanders being appointed to a high position ( even VP ? ) in an H. Clinton presidency ?

I've never really been clear on the appointment process, and if purely a choice, I'm not aware of the dynamics, good or bad, between Clinton and Sanders.

( there's that outlook again, a little bit of something good is better than none of something excellent )

Edited March 17, 2016 by MigL