Photo of Bernie Sanders being arrested in 1963 Chicago protest

Meh, that 538 piece is unexceptional in reveals, with context.

“When she’s shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party.”
“To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising.”

Excepting that the statements we need to hear are not forthcoming. Her new requirement for releasing the transcripts of her paid addresses to Goldman Sachs & like,… that all politicians everywhere must first do the same? So weak.

Not all politicians are vying to be President, the other Democrat(ish) contender is willing to discuss any statements he has given, paid or not, and her admission with this requirement, that her peerage being opaque in their influence dealings makes it okay for her? No Thank You.

The article continues re-iterating that when the Democratic Party changes position, that’s when Clinton changes her position. Voting records are useful, but only to a certain degree, particularly in a 2-party system. This too makes the fact of her & Bernie voting together less than useful in determining anything about either.

BTW there really aren’t a lot of people on the (US)left claiming Clinton is “Conservative”. The primary confusion on that front is that there ARE a lot of people on the (US)left that are claiming Clinton is decidedly “Corporatist”(what sort is murky, people seem to simply mean she is the pawn of business when they say it), and forgive them if that seems to cause conflation of the two, because Corporatism in the US seems to simply mean Regulation Capture by Other Means. and does not appear to serve the 99%.


The Party thanks you for your support, Comrade, as we march into our glorious future.

1 Like

It’s bizarre to me that she claims to be a progressive while courting Wall Street and being a pal every winter with the Kissingers.

I find her Senate vote almost immaterial as she’s barely even been a member of the Senate.


If Obama can’t keep black kids from being shot what do you think Sanders is going to do?

If anything Obama should tell you how little power the President actually has, they can veto stuff and “interpret” the implementation of laws, but really they’re using their bully pulpit to influence the legislature.

And Obama did pass the ACA, eased up some of the mandatory sentencing, halted deportations against a lot of people, and gave administrative support to the courts to help speed along same-sex marriage. You just can’t fix the world in 8 years with an obstructionist legislative branch.

And really that’s why you should vote for Hillary if you’re a progressive.

Sanders has about as much hope of carrying out his agenda as Trump does of getting Mexico to build a wall. He’s going to be dealing with Republicans majorities and they’ll just sit on their hands voting against Obamacare for 4 years while Sanders continues to talk about the middle class without being able to do a thing to help them.

The Clintons are ruthless and somewhat distasteful people, and if they want a bill passed they’ll make deals, trade favours, spread rumours, and use all manner of unsavoury tactics to get it done.

It’s a fairly ugly vision of politics, and I far prefer Obama’s pragmatic idealism, but a President Hillary will get a lot more progressive stuff actually done than a President Sanders.

Who said anything about party loyalty?

She’s been in the public eye for decades. Every skeleton has been taken out of her closet and been given a current affairs show on FOX News. She has issues but so does every other candidate by November.

Sanders has some ideas far outside the median American voter and really hasn’t been subjected to a sustained attack yet. There’s a reason Republicans are taking all their shots at Hillary, they know Sanders will be a much easier target come the general election.

Think of her as a progressive Machiavellian.

1 Like

That’s true, and there’s data to back it up.

For every match up that’s polled, Clinton does worse in the general.


She’s running on a platform of ‘No, we can’t’. She doesn’t even want to try. And if you think that the Republicans have been obstructive with Obama, you won’t believe how bad they’ll be if she’s President.

A President Sanders can lay the groundwork for a President Warren, who will be able to get more done when they get the house back in 2020.


Universal health care has majority support. So does free public university, so does raising taxes on the wealthy, so does returning proper regulation to Wall Street.

What exactly is it that you think Bernie supports that is so far outside the American mainstream?

“Median politician” and “median American” are very different things.


Your argument for voting status quo flies in the face of the very phenomenon that makes it a contest at all. Trump and Sanders very real support is partially built on your sad acceptance of your glib “pragmatism” where pragmatism is a tool for asking people to abandon their principles.

Is why you deserve to be addressed thus.

Putting aside your projections for the legislatures, based on? Sanders has about as much hope of achieving his agenda in part as Obama did his, when he faced these very same arguments from supporters of this very same person. But now you think Sanders can’t do it because Obama did (in part)?

Sander’s ideas are not so far out as you presume, or you presume too much of your fellow citizens. Single-payer systems exist, and before they did exist, they did not exist. Ergo they do come from somewhere, and the USA has both adopted major policy and created major policy shifts of equal magnitude in the past. It’s how you came about, hampered primarily by bags of shit that claim nothing can be done, but still the USA managed. Every example of Sander’s agenda can be supported thus.

As for why the other side is focused on Hillary, it isn’t the way you say. They’re focused there because she is the front-runner. Sander’s isn’t an easier target by a long shot, his consistency, his anti-establishment appeal, and yes, his white-maleness make him a dangerous opponent when your own base is howling for change, howling for an anti-establishment candidate, if it could please also just be a white person, a dude, or perhaps very light-skinned latino please and thank you, so long as it isn’t Obama, Clinton or another Washington Insider who courts delegates more than people.

Yes, an anti-establishment candidate running under the big D by necessity can definitely take Republican votes given the current state of that party. A few of my relations in Texas confirm this, even though it’d remain a red state as it stands today.

Your assumptions aren’t just negative, sad and cycnical, they’re also weak and seemingly based on the completely failed and dis-proven notion that things never change.


This far out those polls are basically meaningless, most voters are looking at Sanders as generic Democrat who will almost always outperform the established candidate.

What happens when they find out that Sanders calls himself a socialist? That he’s probably agnostic? When they start talking about how unrealistic his platform is? (he’s basically projecting a massive increase in the labour market that no one thinks is possible)

Once the real attacks start his numbers will suffer.

Well no, her platform is to achieve realistic things. Oddly enough your success story for Sanders involves him doing nothing, retiring in 4 years, then having another Democrat win and actually do stuff.

They also support free ponies. The problem is the massive tax hikes for everyone that those things require.

Maybe Americans will learn to embrace them eventually, but not by November.

I’ve never abandoned my principles, nor do I think Obama has. What proper pragmatism does is allow you to compromise on achieving your principles so you can work with other pragmatists who have different principles.

Without that compromise you end up with a democratic version of the Tea Party.

No President achieves all of their agenda, I think Obama did as well as he did because he was a pragmatist who was able to compromise a lot. I believe that Hillary’s connections and experience means she’ll be able to manoeuver through the politics much better than Sanders.

There’s a reason Sanders can’t find any foreign policy advisors, they’re all with the Clinton campaign because they don’t want to be shut out if she wins. It’s a terrible tactic, but it’s effective.

Recall she’ll also have Bill advising her, she’ll get a huge head start in exploiting her post-election bump.

I’m not presuming anything of my fellow citizens, I’m Canadian :slightly_smiling:

Well no. In fact I remember all the anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives in 2006. I remember saying at the time that the US would have definitely gay marriage within 5 to 20 years time.

My issue is with this belief that the system is so terrible it needs to be blown up completely and rebuilt from scratch since that invariably that ends in ineffectualness or disaster. Sometimes I think the US’s biggest problem is the US revolution since that’s one of the few times blowing the system up worked spectacularly well. Now the whole nation has got the idea that revolutions were are good thing to have!

Canada never had a revolution, we got our independence slowly and peacefully and got most of those things Sanders is saying he’ll deliver.

But you can’t do it that quickly, destroying the establishment doesn’t destroy the money and power that they controlled, it just throws it up for someone else to grab and creates chaos as the systems break down.

Look how much trouble the administration had setting up the exchanges, what would have happened if they tried to be the single insurer?

Or look at the Republican party. They destroyed their establishment with the Tea Party and ended up with a power vacuum that turned their last two primaries into absolute gong shows. The USSR eliminated its establishment and ended up being run by oligarchs. The US took out the establishment in Iraq and Afghanistan and tried to create democratic movements in their place. Anti-establishment candidates don’t take the money and power out of politics, they just hand it to someone else.

A. Reading. You’re asking others to abandon what they hold as their principles in the name of pragmatism. No one doubts that you think you’re right. ?I never said Obama did so.? What you don’t get, what many don’t get when they invoke pragmatism as practicality as a way of saying that X is not practical or achievable, is that pragmatism is for after the vote. After. People didn’t vote for Obama for the watered down Obama they got, and they damn sure wouldn’t have if that’s how he’d held himself out. AFTER the vote.

BTW, equating achievable public policy initiatives with “free ponies” makes you an asshole. Just so you know, I’m helping you by telling you that. I’m in Canada too, but from the US, so it’s okay for me to call you an asshole when you are one. It’s a special place reserved for people who have something telling other people they can’t have it. It’s how you might refer to an American who told you you weren’t free.

Oh and don’t bother insulting me in kind, because I’m not telling you you can’t have free ponies, so you can’t. Insulting me back because I pointed out you’re an asshole is a waste of time, mine and yours, don’t bother.

A. 2004 was the bumper crop, 2006 was when you noticed, good of you to let me know you predicted gay marriage. Thanks.

B. Your issue is that the US does things by way of revolution and you don’t get that. Got it. good. You want it to be like Canada because you think that works up here, so it’d be good there too. Got it. Good. Oh one problem, it’s not Canada, it’s the US, and they do things by way of revolution and always have, daily revolutions issue by issue and it’s how they do it and that’s one revolution they aren’t going to have, the one that makes them Canada. Let me say Duh. Canada never had a revolution? You know, I just finished Woodcock’s A Social History of Canada (again) and you are right I didn’t read of one successful revolution against the Crown.

C. Anti-establishment candidates aren’t magicians, tehy can’t take money and power out of money and power. Oh. Thanks. You say they just hand it over to someone else? OH YAH THINK? Ahem. That is the point, maestro.

HaHa those funny gong show Republicans. I laugh too, but then when I do I look at MY AVATAR. Something you should practice if you want to be a Canadian discussing US politics.


I don’t think so. To me the main argument was who would enact more progressive principles in general. I said Hillary because I don’t think Sanders will be able to deliver.

To me “Change we can believe in” basically means “My ideals are X and I think we can do subset Y”. Perhaps you read different but I got almost exactly the Obama I expected from the campaign.

I was being glib, not an asshole. I pointing that the argument was meaningless since universal health care and free tuition are literally giving away free stuff so people will always be in favour.

The opposition shows up when you talk about how to pay for it and that’s where Americans will reject it (btw, they’ll also be in favour of tax cuts!).

I wasn’t planning to.

You said I believed that things never changed. I pointed out that at a time when the US was > 60% opposed and talking about a constitutional amendment to ban it I said it was inevitable within 20 years (I think my actual estimate was 15).

I think that qualifies as evidence that I do believe things can change.

I recognize the US is different than Canada. That’s why I’m in the position that the US shouldn’t be trying to make a sudden jump to Universal Healthcare.

And I do think the US’s propensity for revolution is a bad thing. I think a lot of the negative aspects of the US’s international interventions come from the idea, based on the American Revolution, that you can break down the bad institutions, spark a revolution, and get a functioning democracy.

I think you missed my point. The money isn’t going to the poor or the middle class, it’s staying in the institutions of power. You’re just putting different people in change of those institutions.

Rob Ford is a fascinating exception though he really is an exception, and a mayor at that. I suspect a lot of his success was due to the fact he was ridiculously affable, did a lot of handshaking, and people really don’t care as much about mayors.

I can’t think of another major Canadian politician in the same ballpark.

The US Republican party however has been supplying them regularly and I really think it’s tied to the US tradition of being anti-establishment and promoting the fringes.

1 Like

A-fucking-men. My sentiments exactly. I won’t vote for Hillary either, for those same reasons. And if Trump/Cruz/Rubio win, then fine, let the GOP continue to show their true colors, and then in another four years lets see what happens.


I’m taking you down as soon as humanly possible.

1 Like

[quote=“Wanderfound, post:50, topic:74046”]
She’s a poll-driven weathervane.
[/quote]This isn’t a very good argument against her, unless you think the Democratic party is going to become more conservative than the GOP some time during her term.


Not only was she 16 at the time but this was also a time when Southern Democrats were the segregation party.

I think this is why Bernie is an important candidate, even if he doesn’t get the nomination.

Getting out there. Saying this. Hearing it said. Normalizing this conversation. For the long-term plan, that’s important. It’s important that Hilary knows that HALF of her party thinks she’s weak on these issues. It’s important that she knows she can’t safely ignore them. It’s important that the people who will become the DNC establishment in the next 10 years understand that the message is important.

8 years ago, we wouldn’t have heard this.

This year, it’s paving the way for an Elizabeth Warren presidency. :slight_smile: In my mind, Bernie’s already done an AMAZING thing. The spark is lit. All we have to do is tend the fire.

Hilary wouldn’t be a disaster as a president (Trump would; Rubio would; Cruz would; Carson would), though she’d be wrong in so many ways. No worse in many ways that Obama has been (and he’s been awful in some ways). She’s good at what she does.

But I’d be looking for house members and senators that were inspired by Bernie Sanders in the next 8 years.


This isn’t an argument against Sanders. He protested, he took a stand. The nature of his punishment by the establishment wasn’t something he could control. So… try again.


You’re hearing from people who say their views are best represented by Sanders and specifically not Clinton, and you’re saying they should vote Clinton anyway because pragmatism. You can say that you don’t think that’s what you’re doing, but if you read your posts, you’ll find you are doing that. Pragmatism mixed with a swill of fear: [quote=“aluchko, post:43, topic:74046”]
I think you need to choose Hillary because you can’t afford to lose this election.
[/quote][quote=“aluchko, post:61, topic:74046”]
pragmatism pragmatists pragmatist

Perhaps read Change We Can Believe In by Barack Obama. In that book, released several months before the election where the slogan you reference was utilized, Obama laid out an uncompromising plan supporting his ideals with specific goals which were not met. You were mentioned in the conclusion, but you were named “cynic” and described as the one who would tell people they could not do the things they might be able to.

Now, I said that he --campaigned-- as such as is described in that book, which specifically counters your point.

But maybe that book wasn’t real and I imagined it. I think it is real and I didn’t imagine it, and that Obama campaigned exactly as I described, on “Yes Wen Can” and “Hope” and (an un-bastardized) “Change we can believe in” and not the “Hey, we’ll settle with what we can get, folks, that’s change we can believe in” that you suggest. Campaigns, particularly the invigorating ones, may include messages of compromised ideals, but not principles. The difference is not a subtle one if you take the time.

But I’ll read a book before investing my vote, so what the fuck do I know. Maybe I’ll try just assuming next time.

“free ponies” is the quote, scroll up to find your own damn post with those very words.

Wow, I’m gonna have to ask you to turn in your Canadian card, if you’re going to insult our educational system by failing to recognize glib as shallow and insincere, traits that can definitely be associated with irritating and contemptible people/behaviours i.e. an asshole.

Alex, I’ll take “Canadian” for $2000 please.

Okay FunkDaddy, here’s your clue: This Canadian describes Universal Health Care as “giving away free stuff”

Alex, what is an Asshole Canadian?

Right you are FunkDaddy, our judges tell me that tax-dodging Canadian would also have been an acceptable answer. Universal Healthcare pays societal dividends even when it helps persons in poverty who do not pay income taxes that support the healthcare system, thus it is never actually “free” even when an individual benefits by it without ever contributing directly via taxation.

Thanks Alex!

No problem FunkDadddy!

Nonsense, I never said that. READING.

I said: “Your assumptions aren’t just negative, sad and cycnical(sic), they’re also weak and seemingly based on the completely failed and dis-proven notion that things never change.”

Sanders is trying to change the system from within, that’s what Obama did. Using Obama as an example of why Sanders can’t advance his agenda is laughable, particularly in the context of Clinton.

Obama’s goals were laudatory and high, and he missed, but did get much done. Sander’s goals are laudatory and high, and have as much chance now as Obama’s did then. BOTH campaign(ed) on their goals without compromise excepting acknowledging that they would work with opposition, which is required and not equivalent to lessening an objective in campaigning.

Sudden jumps is how the US does things. It may not seem to be the case when you need a wheelbarrow to transport your hardcopy of the Federal Register, but revolution is a sudden jump or a series thereof, and revolution is the American Way.

Yes, it has drawbacks, so does Canada’s way of doing things, I’ve always thought we should end the tradition of dressing up the PM in the Queen’s old clothes, but HABITS DIE HARD no matter where you are.

You can in fact break down bad institutions, spark a revolution, and get a functioning democracy. That’s how they got where they are and there’s a lot of good there. You don’t think they should make a sudden jump into Universal Healthcare, well, they will, but it’ll be a series of jumps. Many of which have already occurred. FEHB, IHS, VHA, Medicare/Medicaid, TRICARE/Military Health System, CHIP, PACE, SPAP are federal examples and there are at least a half dozen state examples that include actual universal, single payer systems albeit in various states of disrepair/functionality.

It’s actually not so terribly different than the less protracted process that Canada saw, you are aware it didn’t occur over night?

No one missed your point, putting different people in charge is the freaking point of anti-establishment candidates, thereby changing said establishment. There’s a term for people opposed to doing this too.

Even one for you specifically antidisestablishmentarianistically, it means you’re not specifically antidisestablishmentarian, but that you seem predisposed towards being so.

Just to be crystal clear, anti-establishmentarianism is not by necessity at all about doing away with establishments. It is about changing them.[quote=“aluchko, post:63, topic:74046”]
Rob Ford is a fascinating exception though he really is an exception, and a mayor at that. I suspect a lot of his success was due to the fact he was ridiculously affable, did a lot of handshaking, and people really don’t care as much about mayors.

I can’t think of another major Canadian politician in the same ballpark.

The US Republican party however has been supplying them regularly and I really think it’s tied to the US tradition of being anti-establishment and promoting the fringes.

No he isn’t. Ford was exceptional because he’s a laughable bumblefuck, but the beliefs he purported to support and gave voice to are common enough that you can go out and find them everyday at any level of govt and you can find laughable bumblefucks of a lesser degree left right and centre. Ford is to Canada as Trump is the US, over-the-top. But a significant number of people will espouse the same exact dogma with complete seriousness and no laughable bumblefuckery whatsoever.

Another example at teh Muni level, Good ol George Mammoliti, whom I had the pleasure of chasing off of private property I had rented, after he (not me) engaged in a bit of screaming match over being told to leave said property. If we can find even 2 such bumblefucks in one city, there will be plenty if you keep looking. And then take that number x10, we’re not so different up here.


I think that says more about the Republicans than Hillary. She is an opportunist who changes her views to attract conservative voters, but the Republican party has been conservative-reactionary to pseudo-primitivist for at least the last 25 years.

Hillary is one of the reasons why I have a strong aversion to calling myself a liberal. She has far more in common with the republican clown car candidates than my hard left voluntary-collectivist views. I don’t think that Bernie is my ideal politician, but he is closer than Hillary is.

Yes, I live in the UK and can’t vote in the US elections, but I have voted for Larry Sanders, Bernie’s brother (who is a former Green Party of England and Wales politician) when he was standing in Oxford East. I trust his views on his brother more than I would from a random person from the US regardless of their politics, and from what Larry has said about Bernie he is the best option on offer.

I would still rather have anarcho-syndicalist collectives everywhere but that isn’t being offered.