Bernie Sanders the alternative to Hillary C.

[Tiassa]

What You Hate, and Other Notes

​

Too bad you don't have an actual pitch, Ice.

Adopting Republican talking points is no way to sell a liberal "revolution".

And nobody can yet explain where we're getting 5.3% GDP growth from. I mean, many laughed when Jeb said four percent, and then the GOP derby throwing in on what turned out to be an arbitrary number, and then Scott Walker trying to pitch four and a half percent.

But, hey, it's Bernie Sanders, right? So we're supposed to believe 5.3% is just going to happen?

As I said↗ last month:

The media wants to cast Bernie as some sort of polar anti-Trump? Bernie wants to welcome and promote that idea? History shows this is really dangerous for the left.​

Wenner↱, this week:

There is an inauthenticity in appeals to anger rather than to reason, for simplified solutions rather than ones that stand a chance of working. This is true about Donald Trump, and lamentably also true about Sanders.​

This is problematic. But, hey, it's Bernie Sanders, and you don't need to actually pitch any ideas, just take up petulant Republican anti-identification for yourself. As I said↗ last month:

Like I said: What I don't hear is how this is going to work.

You're pitching in the style of a Republican operative. Bring the House of Representatives? Yeah, he's just going to energize his base, and it will happen!

Uh-huh.

I believe you.

Just ... poof! ... magic.

What I don't hear is how this is going to work.​

And Wenner, this week:

Every time Sanders is challenged on how he plans to get his agenda through Congress and past the special interests, he responds that the "political revolution" that sweeps him into office will somehow be the magical instrument of the monumental changes he describes. This is a vague, deeply disingenuous idea that ignores the reality of modern America.​

And as I pointed out↗ last month:

And all you have is an argument against, centered around your own personal priorities. To the one, that's well and fine, as that's how you see the world and generally isn't my business. But where we make these sorts of things each other's business, such as this discussion, you're going to need more than that to change my mind.​

And that's still all you've got.

You're not selling the package. You're pitching against what you have decided to hate.

Hillary Clinton is indeed, as her critics claim, part of the "the establishment." Like all women of lofty ambition, she is keenly and woefully aware that in 2016, less than a century out from women's suffrage, pioneering into a space formerly only occupied by men requires an acceptance that gender constrains one to work within the system, rather than from outside of it.

So the next time you say, "I hate Hillary Clinton," ask yourself why.​

Katie Massa Kennedy's↱ reflection on liberal vitriol toward Hillary Clinton is pretty much an indictment of Sanders supporters who take the line you have.

The sad thing is that I'm not really worried that a Bernie Bro somewhere went misogynist. Rather, I'm concerned that Sen. Sanders and his supporters aren't even trying to sell the package.

Like I said↗ last month, if Sanders wins the nomination he can have my full support. The upshot is that then I'll have to formulate the arguments you are apparently entirely incapable of figuring out. It's a hard pitch; it would be nice if some of you would actually try. I'm already hearing from some Sanders supporters how they won't back Clinton. That's fine; they're either venting or acknowledging that they're just fine with a President Trump or Cruz. And like I said last month, they will bear a measure of responsibility for whatever denigrations of my quality of life Republicans manage in four years under Trump or Cruz.

There are days, Ice, when I do wonder. You have no apparent clue about leftist history; you push away themes describing details in order to reiterate the details; you don't actually know how to sell the liberal package you're backing and don't seem willing to even try. And it's true, there are days when I wonder why that is.
____________________

Notes:

Massa Kennedy, Katie. "Your Gleeful Liberal Takedown of Hillary Clinton Is Affirming Institutional Sexism". The Huffington Post. 22 March 2016. HuffingtonPost.com. 24 March 2016. http://huff.to/1XM06r7

Wenner, Jann S. "Hillary Clinton for President". Rolling Stone. 23 March 2016. RollingStone.com. 24 March 2016. http://rol.st/1Rl6GmD

 

[iceaura]

Too bad you don't have an actual pitch, Ice.

Adopting Republican talking points is no way to sell a liberal "revolution".

Who's talking revolution here but you? Who's trying to reduce the very real danger of nominating that particular weak politician to campaign against the rise of American fascism, to some supposed "Republican talking points", but you?

Like I said: What I don't hear is how this is going to work

Of course not. It probably isn't. Neither is anything worthwhile Clinton is proposing going to work. Pick your malfunction. If you want to vote for somebody whose stuff will get done, vote for Trump.

Wenner↱, this week:

"There is an inauthenticity in appeals to anger rather than to reason, for simplified solutions rather than ones that stand a chance of working. This is true about Donald Trump, and lamentably also true about Sanders."

This is problematic.

No, it isn't. It's bullshit. And it's standard Republican cant - for months now the minions on Fox and CNN and so forth have been rhetorically pairing Trump and Sanders, just like that. You quote a parrot of Roger Aile's minions, and bid me take it seriously?

You're not selling the package. You're pitching against what you have decided to hate

The accusation of hatred is of course standard Republican boilerplate rhetoric - but don't let that stop you.
Or these fine analysts:

So the next time you say, "I hate Hillary Clinton," ask yourself why.

Katie Massa Kennedy's↱ reflection on liberal vitriol toward Hillary Clinton is pretty much an indictment of Sanders supporters who take the line you have.

So now it's "vitriol" and "hatred" to have a working memory of Clinton's career. But it's me supposedly talking like a Republican.

Ok. But consider this: I'm not wrong about Clinton, up there in those posts.

And on top of the "hatred" accusation being juvenile as well as in error, the question of why is typically (of Clinton backers) disingenuous: It's no mystery why a "liberal" would have a low opinion of Hillary Clinton, even if you hadn't been told already at some length, above. Clinton has betrayed the people she now canvases for votes, several times, over many years, on very important matters. She has done ill by them, and their country. And her motives were weak, her subsequent excuses risible, her litany of decision one of cowardice and expediency. A low opinion of that is a normal human assessment.

The upshot is that then I'll have to formulate the arguments you are apparently entirely incapable of figuring out. It's a hard pitch; it would be nice if some of you would actually try. I'm already hearing from some Sanders supporters how they won't back Clinton.

Of course you heard exactly the opposite from me. Shoot, I backed John Kerry when that douchebag was the only remaining choice. I'll stretch it to Clinton, like I said a few times already. But hey - you only have one box and one label, apparently, so in we all go.

As far as arguments for Sanders? He's the only candidate running who is not guaranteed to oppose the policies and reforms I think are necessary, and actively prevent the initial steps needed for restoration of sound American governance. Furthermore, I think he's likely to attempt his campaign finance and economic agenda, which is the best of all the candidates. And that's not just my opinion - that's Krugman's opinion, Asher Edelman's opinion, and a majority of the American polled citizenry's opinion. Given that unique status, he could be a cocker spaniel and I'd vote for him. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Tiassa]

Signs, Signs

​

It's not quite like the Republican ritual where one pledges to fight on until the end, and then suspends their campaign days later. At least, I don't think that's what is about to happen.

In this case, Cenk Uygur asked the question.

The Huffington Post↱ brings the detail:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) insisted he'll stay in the presidential race, but outlined conditions under which he would endorse Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton "if I can't make it" ....

.... "If I can't make it―and we're going to try as hard as we can until the last vote is cast―we want to completely revitalize the Democratic Party and make it a party of the people rather than one of large campaign contributors," Sanders said in an interview on the progressive Web show "The Young Turks."

Sanders also listed policy demands he would make of Clinton, including a single-payer health care system, a $15 an hour minimum wage, tougher regulation of the finance industry, closing corporate tax loopholes and "a vigorous effort to address climate change."​

All in all, it's a pretty good list.

The big problem is single-payer. It's one thing for Hillary Clinton to say she'll fight for it; she has experience with single-payer. But, like Bernie Sanders, she would still have to get it through Congress.

Democrats have a potential pathway to a Senate majority, but not a filibuster-proof majority. Rumors of House vulnerability raise Democratic hopes, but we're likely not taking the lower chamber this year. It could be very interesting, though, if Democrats gain enough ground in the House to make a midterm flip realistic.

Meanwhile, if the former Secretary of State wishes to bargain with the Senator from Vermont, she might well ask him to help start assembling a single-payer plan, with an eye to the midterm, and use the first two years to push universal pre-K, and even sweeten the offer by weaving food security into the pitch. Regardless of whether or not she can actually win that in two years, Republicans will embarrass themselves grotesquely along the way.

The real question, of course, is Bernie Sanders. He doesn't much like the Democratic Party, and has spent decades pretending the difference between Democrat and Republican would have no effect on people's quality of life. You know, the, "They're all the same", argument he's been pushing since the eighties, at least.

And as Sanders and his campaign now start aiming to pick off superdelegates, questions arise about his approach. Last month, Reuters↱ reported that Sanders' supporters started appealing to superdelegates―

But some emails, phone messages, and petitions sent by the Sanders boosters have backfired, upsetting superdelegates with their aggressive tone and leading many to dig in their heels for Clinton, according to interviews conducted by Reuters.​

―and the first round did not go so well. It's probably best to not menace and threaten the superdelegates. But the Sanders campaign itself is also taking a problematic tack; last week, John Aravosis↱ explained:

In other words, even if Clinton wins more states, and more actual votes―as she is doing now―Sanders will try to win by superdelegate, and overrule the popular vote.

All of which doesn't sound terribly progressive. Though it does sound like something Castro, Ortega, or the Soviets would do.

And if you think I'm reading this wrong, Sanders' campaign manager Tad Devine admitted the same thing on a phone call with reporters on Wednesday. But Devine went one step further on that call. Sanders may not only target the superdelegates in order to win the nomination if he loses the popular vote, Sanders is arguing that it's also legitimate for him to ask Hillary's pledged delegates―the ones she won in the primaries―to switch to him instead. Jon Green wrote about this the other day. When the candidate and the campaign say the same thing, it's strategy.​

And that article from AmericaBlog colleague Jon Green↱ makes the point pretty clearly, that "to argue that your path to victory hinges on superdelegates after your campaign and supporters have been raising hell about superdelegates for over a month is quite ironic."

Green also noted, "I like Bernie. I voted for Bernie. I think he should stay in the race as long as he wants. But these arguments are really quite bad."

Aravosis, for his part, also noted Sanders' appearance last week on The Rachel Maddow Show:

We think we have a good shot, can't guarantee it, of winning a whole lot of states, of delegates, of perhaps winning California, state of Washington, Oregon, many of the smaller states and winning New York state. We think if we come into the convention in July in Philadelphia, having won a whole lot of delegates, having a whole lot of momentum behind us, and most importantly perhaps being the candidate who is most likely to defeat Donald Trump, we think that some of these super delegates who have now supported Hillary Clinton can come over to us.​

When Maddow asked if that meant he would still try if he was behind in pledged delegates, Sanders refused to answer directly: "Well, we're going to do the best we can in any and every way to win," he explained.

Maddow tried one more time, asking if the person who is behind in pledged delegates should conced to the person who leads; Sanders responded, "Well, I―you know, I don't want to speculate about the future and I think there are other factors involved."

The question is whether Sanders would disrupt the Convention on this point.

There is also the irony that Tad Devine, senior advisor to the Sanders campaign, is among the Democrats who helped build the superdelegate system. While he might plot to pick off superdelegates even if Sanders trails, he told NPR in 2008 one of the dangers is "if there's a public perception that these superdelegates have somehow gone against the will of the people".

This all makes bargaining with Sanders potentially sticky. Jonathan Allen↱, ostensibly a Clinton supporter, tore into Sanders for the evolving superdelegate strategy:

If he cared about the Democratic Party, its rules, its members or its voters, he could have joined the party before it became politically convenient for him to do so. He is a Democrat for one reason and one reason only: His pursuit of the presidency.

Instead of working to reform the party during his 40-plus years as a candidate and officeholder, he's cast stones from the outside, ripping Democrats and sometimes running against them in quixotic bids that threatened to result in the election of Republicans.

When Patrick Leahy sought to become the first Democrat ever elected to the Senate from Vermont in 1974, Sanders jumped into the race and nearly siphoned off enough votes from Leahy to elect his Republican opponent. A dozen years later, he ran against the sitting Democratic governor of Vermont, Madeleine Kuhnin. It wouldn't matter, Sanders told the New York Times, whether Kuhnin or a Republican, aided by his candidacy, won the governor's office.

“It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee,” he said.​

Still, Sanders has staked his career on presenting himself, as Allen puts it, "as a paragon of non-partisan virtue", and while he has no qualms about accusing Democrats of corruption or ineptitude, one wonders which sentiment drives his tactical shift from complaining about superdelegates to exploiting what he complains about.

Mr. Sanders would probably be better off devoting his efforts to easing people's concerns about a tall number like twenty trillion dollars, and explaining how he expects the economy to manage unprecedented 5.3% growth alongside broad tax increases.

Thus far the Democrats have put on perhaps the best primary show of my lifetime; it would be a shame to wreck it all at the Convention. Bernie Sanders is not stupid; even he can figure out what happens if he destabilizes the Party heading into November, especially for the sake of his Tweedledee and Tweedledum self-gratification. And his reputation as a paragon of non-partisan virtue ought to be worth something; it would be a shame to wreck it so late in his career. Indeed, this might be Clinton's strongest pitch in the end: You know how this works. You know what we face in Congress. I'm not asking you to bail right now, but when this is over, for fuck-all sake, help me. If you want these things, then please get yourself through this without wrecking yourself.

Because it's not a bad list as far as policy priorities go. Single-payer is the toughest ask considering Congress and the voters. But if Bernie must lose the nomination contest, he couldn't ask for a better president to run point on single-payer than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

[Tiassa]

Notes for #103

Allen, Jonathan. "Bernie Sanders’ Superdelegate Chutzpah". Roll Call. 14 March 2016. RollCall.com. 25 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1ZzaWCj

Aravosis, Jon. "Sanders to target Hillary’s superdelegates if he can’t win popular vote". AmericaBlog. 18 March 2016. AmericaBlog.com. 25 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1UMwZpz

Fang, Marina. "Bernie Sanders Lays Out His Requirements For Endorsing Hillary Clinton". The Huffington Post. 24 March 2016. HuffingtonPost.com. 25 March 2016. http://huff.to/22zlaHX

Green, Jon. "Sanders’s path to victory involves unprecedented and absurd delegate math". AmericaBlog. 17 March 2016. AmericaBlog.com. 25 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1RqdaAI

Inskeep, Steve. "The Role of Superdelegates in the Democratic Race". Morning Edition. 4 April 2008. NPR.org. 25 March 2016. http://n.pr/1RCQQHk

Lopez, Luciana. "Sanders supporters' courtship of Clinton superdelegates may be backfiring". Reuters. 29 February 2016. Reuters.com. 25 March 2016. http://reut.rs/1Zz6mE7

 

[iceaura]

Meanwhile, if the former Secretary of State wishes to bargain with the Senator from Vermont, she might well ask him to help start assembling a single-payer plan, with an eye to the midterm, and use the first two years to push universal pre-K, and even sweeten the offer by weaving food security into the pitch. Regardless of whether or not she can actually win that in two years, Republicans will embarrass themselves grotesquely along the way.

Fantasy, nostalgia for a world that hasn't been seen in a generation and never had a Clinton in it.

If you had to bet money, which of these would you give better odds, really:

1) that little scenario above, where everybody pretends that there are no already assembled single payer plans in Clinton's file, that the upcoming midterm will be a time for further advance rather than a dogfight over ground gained if any, that Clinton will carry out such a strategy with the long term goal held firm, and that embarrassing gerrymander-secured Republicans is a feasible way of acquiring leverage against them which Clinton will use;

2) Clinton, when faced with hard and intransigent and unembarrassed and media supported opposition to her proposed radical and unprecedented socialist expansion of big government into family child care, will rewrite her little pre-K and food security programs in advance - before negotiating them - to be limited to some of the more deserving poor and contracted through private industry (vouchers or the like), and then during actual negotiations receive a couple of Republican votes

in return for further increasing State control over participation in Obamacare, and agreeing to raise (rather than lower) the SS retirement and/or Medicare eligibility age brackets.

Because it's not a bad list as far as policy priorities go. Single-payer is the toughest ask considering Congress and the voters. But if Bernie must lose the nomination contest, he couldn't ask for a better president to run point on single-payer than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And here is where the rubber hits the road.

Taking the Republican dumpster fire for granted, there has been no more ultimately effective opponent of single payer health insurance in the US than Clinton, acting as gatekeeper. Whether due to incompetence, industry influence, or underlying political stance and ideology (my guess), she has opposed it and damaged its prospects in various ways for a generation.

Why anyone would even hypothesize that she would be an effective advocate, negotiator, or point man, for that particular cause is a mystery. What are you hoping for - a transformation of character? A sudden enlightenment and backbone stiffening of a career transactional politician with basic rightwing authoritarian sympathies?

And that article from AmericaBlog colleague Jon Green↱ makes the point pretty clearly, that "to argue that your path to victory hinges on superdelegates after your campaign and supporters have been raising hell about superdelegates for over a month is quite ironic."

So the champion of nuance throws it overboard at the first wave. Sanders has been damaged, considerably, by the superdelegate setup. It has substantially suppressed his vote and public support, by being publicized as such a large lead for Clinton that one is wasting a vote for Sanders, for example, the single most common argument against voting for him. His objections are real, his complaints well founded.

But the use of that setup to put him over the top at the end would be the opposite of the use of them by Clinton to prevent being overtaken, right? The irony would be on the other side - a setup Clinton was using to shore up and counting on to backstop a predictably weak campaign, turned against it.

And that would be presumed to diminish Sanders in what way, exactly? That it shows he is not as ineffectively idealistic and fecklessly unable to play hardball politics as is widely and loudly proclaimed by the John Kerry Party?

 

[Tiassa]

The Importance of Being Bernie

​

To the one, it is not merely a question for Bernie Sanders; to the other, it is a long question with difficult implications that has faced liberalism and leftism throughout history:

There's little doubting Bernie Sanders's core political convictions—he's been saying the same things for decades, with remarkable consistency. But turning convictions into policy is the challenge, and the Vermont senator's interview with the editorial board of the New York Daily News raises some questions about his policy chops.

Throughout his interview, Sanders seemed taken aback when he was pressed on policy—and not just on the matters that are peripheral to his approach, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or interrogation of detainees, but even on bread-and-butter matters like breaking up the big banks, the Democratic presidential hopeful came across as tentative, unprepared, or unaware.​

David A. Graham↱ of The Atlantic offers as sympathetic a critique as possible, and it's still not good; his review continues:

It's striking that there hasn't been more coverage of Sanders's policy ideas so far during the campaign, even at this late date, with most of the primary season concluded. He's even acquired a reputation as something of a wonk, the kind of guy who eschews soaring rhetoric for dry nuts and bolts on the stump—and gets people to love him anyway. The gaps uncovered by the Daily News are not just about pragmatism. (There have, of course, been plenty of accusations, not least from Hillary Clinton's campaign, that Sanders is offering a deeply unrealistic program. He tends to answer that they fail to grasp that he is building a political revolution.) The question here is not how Sanders would enact policies, but what those policies would be. If the Sanders campaign has shied away from deep dives into policy, this interview might be why: The candidate reveals himself as a far defter diagnostician than clinician.​

In general, though, the reviews are devastating. At msnbc, Steve Benen↱ struggled to soften the blow:

It's easy to overstate these things. A Washington Post piece called the interview, conducted on Monday and published yesterday, a "disaster." A writer at Politico argued that when Sanders was pressed for specifics on trade and jobs, the senator was "not much better than Trump in his cluelessness."

I wouldn't go that far, but it's not unfair to note that the Daily News interview raised concerns about Sanders that the Vermonter has largely avoided after nearly a year on the campaign trail.

If the senator had flubbed a question or two, struggling with details on obscure areas outside his wheelhouse, it wouldn't have made much of a ripple. But as Jonathan Capehart noted, this happened more than once or twice in this interview. Asked about breaking up the big banks, Sanders wasn't sure about the Fed's authority, or the administration's. Asked about court fights over too-big-to-fail measures, Sanders conceded, "It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that."​

We should probably take the moment to recognize that this is how liberals lose.

There are many components to the amorphous entity we colloquially refer to as the System, or Establishment; the finer details of what composes the System seem left to the beholder. But some of these components are what they are because they are what we had at the time; the liberal quest through history has been to improve the benefits of the societal endeavor, which means working to change the unjust outcomes wrought by the System. One result, though, of this general praxis is that liberals have a very hard time building working models as proof of concept. It is easy enough to point to modern European successes, but, (A) those also were wrought from prior iniquity; (B) these are smaller populations, and; (C) Americans, despite their oft-asserted Christian heritage, just aren't down with that kind of sharing and caring―ours is based more on the personal gratification of feeling good because we did something to help than actually solving problems.

Nonetheless, nobody is actually asking Sen. Sanders for a working model including 5.3% growth, not even a microcosm that can be tested for scalability.

Rather, we might look at a signature campaign issue, which is breaking up large banks with sufficient gravity as to damage the economy by their irresponsibility and malfeasance. And while the question of how one intends to do that, piece-by-piece, step-by-step, as a legislative policy and executive regulatory issue is, in fact, a really big ask for requiring the candidate to stand on very unstable presuppositions about the future. That is to say, "Yes, we'll pass this legislation, and this here, as well," is problematic enough insofar as Republicans will kick and bite and spit as much as they can, and are well-postured to block universal health care, universal pre-K, the bank breakup, or any number of banner issues.

But this is something else. This is a signature issue that will strain our traditional view of the U.S. Constitution, and the candidate says, "It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that".

Graham, in his analysis of the banking portion of the interview, notes:

The interview is full of vague comments like that one. For example, Sanders complains that executives implicated in the financial crisis haven't been prosecuted. A board member asked him whether there are actually laws that could have nailed them. “I suspect that there are. Yes,” Sanders answered ....

.... Rather than learning the mechanism, the questioner earned a lecture about how Wall Street is built on fraud, since Sanders is comfortable talking about why he doesn't approve of Wall Street's M.O.​

Sanders' rhetoric plays very well to liberals in a primary; the NYDN interview↱ illuminates a hazard. It is dangerous enough, historically, for liberals to go forward pushing such vagary. Even in a year when we can sell a hopeful platform, there still remains a question of the next four. Historically, liberalism is punished for failure in a way that conservatism isn't. The contemporary American trend is sharp.

And the legal implications of how to nail down one of your vital planks? Honestly, how? How does he not be ready to discuss those aspects?

Benen frames his consideration of the NYDN interview according to his protest-campaign thesis:

If you talk privately to Hillary Clinton campaign aides, one of the more common complaints is that Bernie Sanders just hasn’t faced enough scrutiny. It’s ironic, in a way―Sanders supporters generally argue the Vermont senator doesn’t get enough attention from the national media, and in a way, Team Clinton agrees.

As the argument goes, much of the political world has treated Sanders as a protest candidate, who’s serious about putting his ideas in the spotlight, but less serious about actually winning the presidency―a dynamic Sanders’ own campaign has conceded was largely true at the start of the race. The result has been less scrutiny and a less robust examination.​

We find ourselves in a period of doubt; while the numbers don't look good for Sanders, we maintain the narrative that nomination is, in fact, within his reach; and, technically, it is. That we are having this discussion at this point seems significant in the context of treating Bernie Sanders as a protest candidate.

The narrative portrays this candidacy as a serious, genuine proposition, and we need not complain that it does. But has Sen. Sanders himself adapted? Steve Benen↱ focused on the delegate issue, earlier this week, in considering the transformation; it also seems fair, though, to wonder at what point Mr. Sanders began assembling an arguable policy platform. You know, because, if this isn't just a protest candidacy, those details become very helpful and specifically relevant.

Thus spake Bernie:

• "Well, again, you're asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer."

• "Actually I haven't thought about it a whole lot."

• "It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that."​

Mr. Sanders has a genuine, serious candidacy afoot. It seems well past time he should be considering the implications of running a genuine, serious candidacy.

The NYDN interview is hardly the worst ever given by a presidential candidate, but it does beg a question about whether or not the senior U.S. Senator from Vermont is ready for the Big Show.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Rough interview raises awkward questions for Sanders campaign". msnbc. 6 April 2016. msnbc.com. 7 April 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/22c6Ijy

Graham, David. "How Much Does Bernie Sanders Know About Policy?" The Atlantic. 5 April 2016. TheAtlantic.com. 7 April 2016. http://theatln.tc/1Scu2s1

Sanders, Bernie and Daily News Editorial Board. "Bernie Sanders meets with the Daily News Editorial Board, April 1, 2016". New York Daily News. 4 April 2016. NYDailyNews.com. 7 April 2016. http://nydn.us/1S5gm8o

 

[pjdude1219]

What You Hate, and Other Notes

​

Too bad you don't have an actual pitch, Ice.

Adopting Republican talking points is no way to sell a liberal "revolution".

And nobody can yet explain where we're getting 5.3% GDP growth from. I mean, many laughed when Jeb said four percent, and then the GOP derby throwing in on what turned out to be an arbitrary number, and then Scott Walker trying to pitch four and a half percent.

But, hey, it's Bernie Sanders, right? So we're supposed to believe 5.3% is just going to happen?

As I said↗ last month:

The media wants to cast Bernie as some sort of polar anti-Trump? Bernie wants to welcome and promote that idea? History shows this is really dangerous for the left.​

Wenner↱, this week:

There is an inauthenticity in appeals to anger rather than to reason, for simplified solutions rather than ones that stand a chance of working. This is true about Donald Trump, and lamentably also true about Sanders.​

This is problematic. But, hey, it's Bernie Sanders, and you don't need to actually pitch any ideas, just take up petulant Republican anti-identification for yourself. As I said↗ last month:

Like I said: What I don't hear is how this is going to work.

You're pitching in the style of a Republican operative. Bring the House of Representatives? Yeah, he's just going to energize his base, and it will happen!

Uh-huh.

I believe you.

Just ... poof! ... magic.

What I don't hear is how this is going to work.​

And Wenner, this week:

Every time Sanders is challenged on how he plans to get his agenda through Congress and past the special interests, he responds that the "political revolution" that sweeps him into office will somehow be the magical instrument of the monumental changes he describes. This is a vague, deeply disingenuous idea that ignores the reality of modern America.​

And as I pointed out↗ last month:

And all you have is an argument against, centered around your own personal priorities. To the one, that's well and fine, as that's how you see the world and generally isn't my business. But where we make these sorts of things each other's business, such as this discussion, you're going to need more than that to change my mind.​

And that's still all you've got.

You're not selling the package. You're pitching against what you have decided to hate.

Hillary Clinton is indeed, as her critics claim, part of the "the establishment." Like all women of lofty ambition, she is keenly and woefully aware that in 2016, less than a century out from women's suffrage, pioneering into a space formerly only occupied by men requires an acceptance that gender constrains one to work within the system, rather than from outside of it.

So the next time you say, "I hate Hillary Clinton," ask yourself why.​

Katie Massa Kennedy's↱ reflection on liberal vitriol toward Hillary Clinton is pretty much an indictment of Sanders supporters who take the line you have.

The sad thing is that I'm not really worried that a Bernie Bro somewhere went misogynist. Rather, I'm concerned that Sen. Sanders and his supporters aren't even trying to sell the package.

Like I said↗ last month, if Sanders wins the nomination he can have my full support. The upshot is that then I'll have to formulate the arguments you are apparently entirely incapable of figuring out. It's a hard pitch; it would be nice if some of you would actually try. I'm already hearing from some Sanders supporters how they won't back Clinton. That's fine; they're either venting or acknowledging that they're just fine with a President Trump or Cruz. And like I said last month, they will bear a measure of responsibility for whatever denigrations of my quality of life Republicans manage in four years under Trump or Cruz.

There are days, Ice, when I do wonder. You have no apparent clue about leftist history; you push away themes describing details in order to reiterate the details; you don't actually know how to sell the liberal package you're backing and don't seem willing to even try. And it's true, there are days when I wonder why that is.
____________________

Notes:

Massa Kennedy, Katie. "Your Gleeful Liberal Takedown of Hillary Clinton Is Affirming Institutional Sexism". The Huffington Post. 22 March 2016. HuffingtonPost.com. 24 March 2016. http://huff.to/1XM06r7

Wenner, Jann S. "Hillary Clinton for President". Rolling Stone. 23 March 2016. RollingStone.com. 24 March 2016. http://rol.st/1Rl6GmD

actually the bernie sanders numbers you have attacked with biased source after biased source came from the standard economic model all economists use to judge things.
also the 5.3% didn't come from the sanders campaign but from friedman a clinton supporter. this is just continue your dishonest attacks against sanders to support a candidate that quite frankly is a piss poor candidate that has had the DNC gaming it in her favor from the begining.
same shit different day T. voting for someone like sanders is how liberals win. we have been doing it your way for thirty years and we got next to nothing to show for it. so knock off the fucking lies and bullshit attacks on sanders and his supporters and just admit you want a female president cause your supprt for clinton has nothing to do with real facts
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Colum...e-Sanders-5-Growth-Plan-Isn-t-Crazy-After-All
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/the-sanders-economic-plan_b_9301924.html

 

[iceaura]

We should probably take the moment to recognize that this is how liberals lose.

By being lied about, misrepresented, subjected to incessant assault by people with no interest in good government or honest news coverage of an election campaign?

True. That is how they lose to dishonest media, like the NYDN, in the tank for non-liberals, like Clinton.

And as Clinton is all too likely to demonstrate, one does not need to actually be a liberal to lose in that fashion.

The NYDN interview is hardly the worst ever given by a presidential candidate, but it does beg a question about whether or not the senior U.S. Senator from Vermont is ready for the Big Show.

Compared with whom? Clinton? Please.

Benen frames his consideration of the NYDN interview according to his protest-campaign thesis:

Sometime or another this guy or his media buddies may, or may not, subject Clinton's policies and proposals to the same "serious" approach. My guess? It won't happen until after she's the candidate, and we're committed to her. And it won't be that guy doing it.

 

[mathman]

Sanders is attacking Clinton as being unfit to be president. Does he think Trump is so successful because he attacks his rivals that way? Bernie should be ashamed of himself!

 

[iceaura]

Sanders is attacking Clinton as being unfit to be president.

At least he has grounds, that he does not have to misrepresent - Clinton's attacks have been borderline lies, not just spin but misconstrual.

We're seeing the real Clinton here, media in pocket, machine in gear, no particular destination or goal visible. Statesmanship, competence, integrity, experience, dignity ? Not so much. The question is whether she can manage to lose to Trump - or even Cruz, if he survives the vetting he has yet to receive - behaving like this. I don't know, frankly. I see no reason to risk it.

 

[Tiassa]

also the 5.3% didn't come from the sanders campaign but from friedman a clinton supporter. this is just continue your dishonest attacks against sanders to support a candidate that quite frankly is a piss poor candidate that has had the DNC gaming it in her favor from the begining.
same shit different day T

About that:

It is not just Mr. Sanders’s assumptions for health savings that critics contest. Jared Bernstein, the former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. who is now at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, examined a paper by the economist advising Mr. Sanders, Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, that is circulating on the left.

While calling Mr. Friedman’s work a good effort, Mr. Bernstein cited several assumptions as “wishful thinking.” Among them were minimal health-cost inflation, economic growth reaching 5.3 percent and, in that heated-up economy, no action from the Federal Reserve to apply brakes.

(Calmes↱; boldface accent added)​

I mean, come on, dude, really?
____________________

Notes:

Calmes, Jackie. "Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders's Plans". The New York Times. 15 February 2016. NYTimes.com. http://nyti.ms/1KYuJIt

 

[iceaura]

While calling Mr. Friedman’s work a good effort, Mr. Bernstein cited several assumptions as “wishful thinking.” Among them were minimal health-cost inflation, economic growth reaching 5.3 percent and, in that heated-up economy, no action from the Federal Reserve to apply brakes.

Fine criticism of Friedman's analysis.

Bernie's numbers don't add up unless you include an almost complete revocation of Reagan's taxation changes, and a win in the standoff regarding the offshore money.

But they add up better than anyone else's, under the same assumptions of significant medical cost inflation, low economic growth, and an active Fed always on the alert to combat inflation.

Are you disparaging Sanders whimsically, or are you choosing the best candidate for occupation of the White House?

 

[Billy T]

I don't think it reasonable to require Sanders to now know exactly how he would break up "too big to fail" banks or even how to know which they are. The first, at least, will depend a lot on how much he can lead a not as yet known Congress.

Likewise it is non-sense to suggest the richest nation on Earth can not pay for free tuition at state colleges when US is the only advanced nation that does not do that. No one knows whether or not new taxes on short term trading on wall street will cover that. Certainly it may not as traders will do less of it if heavily taxed. Perhaps the reaction to the "Panama papers" will help pay for it as hidden billions come home to be taxed. I bet right now some on Sander's team are pouring thru them to see if rich Clinton had funds in an off shore and how much is/was in it. If she does /did you will learn its name in their debate on the 14th and her team is woking on how to say "Everything I did was legal," with the least politial damage.
People falling behind on their rent so their kids get some hotdog meat to eat, are not very happy with the super rich not paying at least at their tax rate. World's third richest man, said his tax rate was less than his secretary’s

At this stage, long term consistent general goals and past behavior about campaign financing, supper pacs, relationships with Wall Street, are more important than specific "how to do it" details. From that POV, Sanders wins by a county mile.

Too bad Sanders is not female - if that were the case, he would get a lot of votes from those dumb enough to think that is most important or at least Clinton would not be raking them all in.

 

[Tiassa]

Berning Down the House

I don't think it reasonable to require Sanders to now know exactly how he would break up "too big to fail" banks or even how to know which they are. The first, at least, will depend a lot on how much he can lead a not as yet known Congress.

It is not, however, unreasonable to expect that he can offer at least some clue. You know, something better than, "It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that".

Too bad Sanders is not female - if that were the case, he would get a lot of votes from those dumb enough to think that is most important or at least Clinton would not be raking them all in.

You know, Billy, one of the things that moves me to get involved in the Democratic fight at all is, in fact, the Sanders supporters who pass through my daily experience.

There's the bit where you want Hillary to be a stalled and stonewalled Supreme Court nominee so Bernie doesn't have to run against her.

Or the bit where Iceaura wants to sound like a Republican by botching up history.

Or the bit where PJ is so angry as to denounce Sanders' economic consultant as in the tank for Hillary Clinton.

Amid cowardice, hatred, and ignorance, there's gotta be a pony in there, somewhere.

When we go out and fight like that, we lose.

This is how liberals lose.

And the idea that you three, like other Sanders supporters I've encountered, don't seem to care if you help Republicans. You want the institutional concern? The Establishment's fear? It's that, like Bernie Sanders, you want the support of something you loathe or even hate. Right now it really does seem y'all don't give a damn if you fuck this up so badly that Republicans win.

And here you are, waving one of the stupidest misogynistic flags on the planet: Vagina envy.

"Too bad Sanders is not female?" Is that really how you see women? No, really, for all the history you've witnessed, that is what you've learned about women? That is what you've learned about human rights?

I mean ... really?

Should Sanders pull off the nomination, I have to figure out how to sell his package to voters. It would be very, very nice if his core supporters were actually capable of doing at least a little bit of that work, but wishes aren't horses.

It will also help if I don't have to spend a lot of that time papering over the damage y'all are doing with your hate campaign, but the irony is that in my political world that part will be a bit easier because unlike you and Ice and PJ, I'm not an absolutist.

In which context it is also worth reminding, since the recent decades in which Democrats compromised and clawed and fought and fit in order to keep their hand in are, according to Sanders supporters, disqualifying, that if y'all fuck this up, that's exactly what we get, more decades of Democrats scrambling to merely hold the line.

There is a narrative toward which I am sympathetic. It is a narrative by which young voters, raised on increasingly absolutist politics, are putting a foot down and rejecting the hold-the-line outcomes, and is, in fact, proper and legitimate in general, but lacking historical perspective in particular. That is, one can certainly degree with perspectives on history, but it seems the Sanders movement prefers conservative myopia deliberately blurring history to irrelevance.

If Mr. Sanders was a woman, she wouldn't be running at this point; she would not have lasted this long. Spare us the vagina envy, please.

Because that's the looming, spectral narrative. Ice has said stuff in the past that has left me wondering about some issues, and here you are pushing envy. There is, in all of this, the simple question of making sure she doesn't become president. But is "she", in this case, merely an adjective, or does it mean something more significant?

Because, you know, too bad Sanders is not female, because then he could face the inherent deficit evident in audience assessment of public speakers and authority figures according to sex.

And the inherent distrust society demonstrates toward women.

And that attitude and presentation of (ahem!) "hers" would bury the campaign.

You know, it's one thing that Sen. Sanders tanked his own credibility this week. In a more normative political scheme it isn't really problematic, but in the context Mr. Sanders and his supporters have established, he's just staked his reputation for being a nice, honest person.

As such I probably shouldn't be surprised to hear the conservative myth of female privilege among Sanders supporters; I do, however, confess I'm surprised to hear it from you.

Seriously, even as a watch-the-birdie distraction. Really? What the hell, man? Is that really what you've learned, through the history you've witnessed, about women? About human rights? Or is it just so goddamn important to you that you're willing to try that line?

 

[Bowser]

Still, one wonders why anyone in their right mind would support Hillary. I mean, she's the establishment's candidate. This is why Sanders and Trump have such a large following, people are sick of the establishment and all its failings.

This needs to be the year of real change

 

[Billy T]

... There's the bit where you want Hillary to be a stalled and stonewalled Supreme Court nominee so Bernie doesn't have to run against her.

Not even close to what I said. I wanted to force the Republicans to reverse their "We will not vote on conformation in Obama's last year" position with an offer they would not refuse to vote on; so here and in letter to Obama, I suggested he nominate her.

I clearly stated that if by some slim change not only did they "eat crow" and vote and then even confirm her, she would then have the choice of accepting seat on the high court or continuing her bid for the POTUS. I. e. only in very improbable circumstances and entirely at Clinton's choice, would Bernie get a "free pass" ticket to the democratic nomination. That was also at the time when Mayor (of NYC) Bloomberg was considering about making a run for POTUS, so even that low probably of a clear path for Bernie, was not clear.

My main motivate was to divide Republicans - Some willing to eat crow and some not for a chance to remove the (at that time) the strong front runner for POTUS on Democrat side.

... This is how liberals lose. ...

I don't think that true. They lose when they do because they compromise their liberal view to be more main stream. Bernie has shown that a strong liberal position brings millions of supporter out of the wood work. Those who have found by bitter experience that it really makes little difference who the PTB, Wall Street and their unlimited funds for 30 seconds TV spots, put up front that then win elections. I. e. they will still via their lobbyist control the government - no real changes in the things that matter to them, like legal unlimited political funding via Super Pacs, Legal Off shore tax havens, Loop holes in the 27 books of tax code, written specially for them, etc. If elected POTUS, Clinton will change none of that. Dogs don't bite the hand that feeds them.

Like I have said many times in posts, the US no longer has government "of the people, by the people and for the people;" it has the government by the PTB & Wall Street that can and do buy government "for their corporations (with billions in legal tax-dodging off-shore accounts), for the rich, and by their lobbyists."

Bernie would, to the extent possible, end that and at least restore some of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Perhaps not much until after the next Congress is elected, but then the ship of state may be turned around.

... And the idea that you three, like other Sanders supporters I've encountered, don't seem to care if you help Republicans. ... Right now it really does seem y'all don't give a damn if you fuck this up so badly that Republicans win.

Now your are off in fiction land. EVERY recent poll shows Berine doing better against Trump than Clinton does, and that does not include the fact he is bring out of the wood work millions of new and first time voters, who had given up all hope that the control of PTB & Wall Street could be curbed!
Count me a one – I have not voted for 32 years* as have learned it makes little difference who wins, the control of government remains firmly in the hands of the wealthy – why W. Buffet, World's 3d richest man, pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does – his own admission.

I only stated the truth when noting (and calling them dumb) that there are some women will vote for Clinton, just because she is a woman. I heard one old woman on TV admit she had never voted, did not know much about the candidates, but would vote this time as it was time for US to have a woman as POTUS. I don't know how may more like her exist, but even only 1% could give the POTUS to Clinton, but would not if Berine were a woman too. (+ 1% & -1% is a two percent advantage - often more than the difference in a tight race.)

... And here you are, waving one of the stupidest misogynistic flags on the planet: Vagina envy.

No. Now not only are you off in fiction land, you are inventing things with zero foundation in fact. I don't want the next POTUS picked by the very ignorant like that woman I heard on TV.

* And only then, switching from registered Democrate to Republican so I could vote against Goldwater in the primaries, where your vote does sometimes matter. His nuclear policy scared the s..t out of me. - A potential disaster for the world.

 

[pjdude1219]

About that:

It is not just Mr. Sanders’s assumptions for health savings that critics contest. Jared Bernstein, the former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. who is now at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, examined a paper by the economist advising Mr. Sanders, Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, that is circulating on the left.

While calling Mr. Friedman’s work a good effort, Mr. Bernstein cited several assumptions as “wishful thinking.” Among them were minimal health-cost inflation, economic growth reaching 5.3 percent and, in that heated-up economy, no action from the Federal Reserve to apply brakes.

(Calmes↱; boldface accent added)​

I mean, come on, dude, really?
____________________

Notes:

Calmes, Jackie. "Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders's Plans". The New York Times. 15 February 2016. NYTimes.com. http://nyti.ms/1KYuJIt

So your still relying on biased sources to prove me wrong. Come on your better than that. or are you like most hillary supporters that i've seen and don't care about how deep the mud you have to trudge through is to smear bernie and defend her no matter what. firstly Bernstein fails miserablely here because the economic growth wasn't an assumption it was a product of the model. also again Friedman is not an advisor to sanders; if your source can't get basic facts right why should it be trusted?

for fucks sake its patently obvious that you didn't even read my god damn links considering you posted a link here that one of my sources specifically condemns. your just repeating people libeling an economist for not like what the model shows. note no one has actualy checked the numbers against there own models.

to quote Economist James K. Galbraith former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee - the congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that “no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” But how did Professor Friedman make his estimates? The answer is in his paper. What Professor Friedman did, was to use the standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods of the mainstream economists and institutions. For example, Professor Friedman starts with a fiscal multiplier of 1.25, and shades it down to the range of 0.8 by the mid 2020s. Is this “not credible”? If that’s your claim, it’s an indictment of the methods of (for instance) the CBO, the OMB, and the CEA.

to reiterate friedman used basiclly the same assumptions CEA that its former members are now touting as extreme. are there assumptions Grandiose and ridiculous. I'd suggest you stop now before you dig your hole any deeper. your showing your self to be little more than a partisan hack. stop while ahead i'd really hate to be forced to ruin your rep as a reasoned and well thought ot poster simply because you let your enthusiasim for a candidate however flawed she is get the better of you. it is your perogative to believe hillary the better candidate. it is not however your perogative to lie about other candidates and papers that show them to be better candidates or their ideas have more of impact. i really dislike dishonsty and your showcasing in your sources here some rather extreme intellectual dishonesty. quite frankly your making an argument from authority that Dr. Galbraith as already shown. your sources shat the bed didn't do the work and quite frankly made fools of them selves for attacking a paper based on results they disregarded out have hand and didn't even bother to check

To reiterate the primary means of refuting an economic paper like friedman's is to
A: show a modeling error.
B. show an input error
C. show an arthimetic error

The gang of 4 and krugman who you are trying to shove down my throat admit that none of these happened.
here is another source not that you'll read it cause it disagrees with you
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/...-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

i find it amusing that you posted a source with a flat out lie and your telling me to come on dude really. Try fact checking your sources T. Game set match. I win Kaiba.

 

[Billy T]

In my post 116, I used the well known phrase: "Dogs don't bite the hand that feeds them." but in no way intended that to be read as calling Clinton a dog. She, to the best of her ability, has given the US decades of service, and there is nothing wrong with reversing your position when either times change, or you realized you were wrong, for example in supporting the VietnamWar, the invasion of Iraq, or some of the "free trade" policies that sent jobs to Mexico, etc.

But taking money from Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry etc. is bad judgment, still not admitted. I'll give an extreme example of how that financially hurt me (in a small way) last year:

My wife takes once each week a pill of Actonel Chronos. (The trade name, but chemically 32.5 g of acid risedronic, as best as I can put into English what is on the box.) On our last month long visit with my kids etc. in US, she forgot to bring her box of it to the US. It was easy to find, but we paid 6 times more than what we pay in Brazil.

This is very strange as the box we buy in Brazil is imported from the US. The drug is made by Norwich Pharmaceutical, in NY state city N. Norwich, 13814 (address 6826 State highway Rt. 12) according to what is printed on the box we buy in Brazil.

Some Americans who go to Canada to buy their needed medicines realize how badly they are being ripped off by the US Pharmaceutical industry, protected by lobbyist controlled Congress, that makes importing drugs from Canada, illegal.

Bernie, if POTUS may not be able to make much of his "social revolution" until there are new Congressional elections, but cutting US drug prices by at least half will be very popular, so popular that even Republicans in Congress dare not block that, if Bernie is POTUS and makes a public issue of it. Clinton, never made an issue of this rip-off. As I said:
"Dogs don't bite the hand that feeds them."

 

[Tiassa]

They lose when they do because they compromise their liberal view to be more main stream.

Certes you can provide recent examples of Democrats winning by running far-left platforms. You know, like the time Bill Clinton rolled hard left and won the presidency?

Oh, right. Sorry. That never happened. Bill Clinton won the presidency by rolling rightward.

Bernie would, to the extent possible, end that and at least restore some of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Perhaps not much until after the next Congress is elected, but then the ship of state may be turned around.

And what would be really comforting for many, insofar as it would suggest there is something to such appeal other than wide-eyed ignorance. You wander around spouting this balbutive, pretending you're some manner of genius for saying what most people already recognize to some degree. You make the usual hopeful pronunciations, but you can't actually answer a real policy question.

Where is your historical evidence that Democrats win national elections by breaking hard left?

And also, as I noted in February, bring me the House of Representatives. You didn't have much for that, then, but here you are now blithely talking about when the next Congress is elected. You can't actually answer that part, so you just fold it in and pretend everything is shiny and happy and perfect.

Now your are off in fiction land. EVERY recent poll shows Berine doing better against Trump than Clinton does, and that does not include the fact he is bring out of the wood work millions of new and first time voters, who had given up all hope that the control of PTB & Wall Street could be curbed!
Count me a one – I have not voted for 32 years* as have learned it makes little difference who wins, the control of government remains firmly in the hands of the wealthy – why W. Buffet, World's 3d richest man, pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does – his own admission.

What do you think you know about American voters?

You know that bit where someone complains about "people"? Yeah, well, there's a reason. To the one, your ambitious rhetoric―or Mr. Sanders', as such―is not the worrisome part; what worries is that we're this far into it and both the candidate and his supporters seem clueless. To the other, the vice with which Sen. Sanders' supporters, and increasingly the candidate himself, argue their case is especially problematic. This is the part where Democrats remember that Sen. Sanders doesn't care if he wrecks the Democratic Party. This is the part where his supporters try to tell people there is no difference between Democrat and Republican when so many among the Democratic argument would disagree specifically because that difference has been illustrated in our quality of life. This is the part where you talk down to people, as if you know something special but either cannot or will not tell anyone what it is.

Perhaps my corner of the Universe really is so rare, then. Because for us it wasn't a matter of "learning" that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary; most of us already knew that general condition existed. Mr. Buffett's affirmation of the point is important to us for historical reasons having to do with the fact that nobody really cared when the Socialists and Communists made such points about our economic structure for, oh, say, at least a generation before.

And here's the thing: You're pitching to, essentially, a reflection of the Sanders movement. Don't get me wrong, most voters are ignorant of history; that part doesn't generally change. That is to say, there's a reason why telling people who pay attention to politics and history what they already know doesn't help; and there's a reason why ignoring history in order to transform what they already know into convenient vagary just isn't convincing.

These arguments intended to stir voter anger against the established political manner would be more effective if they aimed to do more than merely stir voter anger. One of the interesting things about Sanders' momentum is that it seems he will be relying on that throughout. Perhaps not, but neither do we have any indication that he won't; in some cases the specific implication is that he will. And that is what it is, but consider please that we are ten and a half months into his campaign and he has not studied the legal implications of a signature issue. If he intends to crowdsource the details, (A) he really ought to say so explicitly, because it's entirely possible that would be helpful, and (B) the momentum needs to start producing a rational discourse illustrating policy pathways.

To wit, yes, we might agree that the step-by-step is a big ask, but neither does it help when Bernie Sanders sounds clueless about his own platform.

We're going to generate what kind of economic growth? Yeah, that's just going to magically happen? And altruistically? So we have this momentum, this nearly revolutionary spirit sweeping among the masses; what is it going to do?

How is it going to win Congress? Can this momentum apply enough pressure to flip the House? And how will it do that, which in turn is a question asserting itself more urgently as time passes.

And with this many gaps in his line, I'm curious what part of history supports the idea that such vagary will play well for Sanders in the general?

I only stated the truth when noting (and calling them dumb) that there are some women will vote for Clinton, just because she is a woman. I heard one old woman on TV admit she had never voted, did not know much about the candidates, but would vote this time as it was time for US to have a woman as POTUS. I don't know how may more like her exist, but even only 1% could give the POTUS to Clinton, but would not if Berine were a woman too. (+ 1% & -1% is a two percent advantage - often more than the difference in a tight race.) ....

.... No. Now not only are you off in fiction land, you are inventing things with zero foundation in fact. I don't want the next POTUS picked by the very ignorant like that woman I heard on TV.

No. That simply doesn't work. There are other voters, including entire platform sectors, that we shouldn't want picking the President of the United States. To wit, the bigot wing. It is easy enough to establish an abstract standard by which they shouldn't be allowed to vote, but these are the United States of America, so that remains merely a politically dangerous metaphor. Nonetheless, you picked women. And counterintuitively; the difference in vote totals you describe is still a net negative, as more people will vote against a woman because she is a woman than for her for the same reason. I think it was the Washington Post, in 2007, who was able to find an Iowa female labor Democrat who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton because the presidency is not a woman's job. I mean, sure, they found one. And, you know, maybe this year is the year in which our society breaks certain trends, but it will be hard to draw out without later data points, and there isn't really anything going on suggesting that transformation of American society is taking place. Again, history asserts itself. Right now some call Bernie "grumpy"; at least he doesn't have to answer for not being ladylike. And, you know, at least he doesn't face the inherent bias against female public figures, or the inherent distrust of women.

"Too bad Sanders is not female" was a bad bet at the outset. Please, stop digging; you're not helping Bernie Sanders, nor anyone else, by this disastrous representation.

 

[iceaura]

Certes you can provide recent examples of Democrats winning by running far-left platforms.

Sanders platform is not far-left.

You know, like the time Bill Clinton rolled hard left and won the presidency?

Oh, right. Sorry. That never happened. Bill Clinton won the presidency by rolling rightward.

And he also governed that way. So will Hillary. And that roll will be from where she is at the end of her presumably successful campaign - in other words, from Eisenhower she will roll rightward.

Where is your historical evidence that Democrats win national elections by breaking hard left?

No national Democratic Presidential candidate since 1968 has run by breaking even mildly left. Several have lost in spite of breaking right.

You can't win by not running. You can lose by being John Kerry.

And also, as I noted in February, bring me the House of Representatives

Which won't do you much good if Clinton is President. That would be kind of tragic, eh? Imagine getting the House and the Senate both, and still losing a good chunk of Social Security, campaign finance reform, foreign military policy reform, the possibility of medical insurance reform, and the possibility of banking reform.

This is the part where Democrats remember that Sen. Sanders doesn't care if he wrecks the Democratic Party. This is the part where his supporters try to tell people there is no difference between Democrat and Republican when so many among the Democratic argument would disagree specifically because that difference has been illustrated in our quality of life.

Sanders isn't wrecking anything (neither is Trump, for that matter).

Meanwhile, your petty attempts at slandering Sanders's supporters - every one of whom here has publicly stated that Clinton is far better than any Republican available, and gone to great lengths excoriating the particular defects and evils of the current Republican Party - illustrate the emptiness of the arguments for Clinton:

they boil down to an unrealistic and dangerous presumption that she will run stronger against some unspecified Republican than Sanders would,
and the equally evidence-denying presumption that she will "get things done" that are better than what Sanders would actually accomplish in the face of Republican hostility.

Both of these are unsupported delusions, borne of a completely justified but unhelpful fear of what the Republican Party has become. Clinton is familiar, and that feels secure, but it's name recognition - not actual reputation. What you will get with her, as a candidate and as a President, is almost certainly a continuation of her career in politics.

If you want any chance of what Clinton is currently selling to be accomplished policy, in other words, vote for Sanders. Don't vote for Clinton unless you want her, specifically, as a person rather than as any hope of accomplishment or effectiveness, to be your candidate for the Presidency.

Because this:

Or the bit where Iceaura wants to sound like a Republican by botching up history

was not from me actually botching history, was it. It's from me pointing to track records, and recommending that they be considered, before you bet on this horse. Or to put it another way: if you are going to take this road, "Amid cowardice, hatred, and ignorance, there's gotta be a pony in there, somewhere. " best make sure you have a pony of your own.