It’s a good point. No, the struggle for human rights isn’t over in the USA. Really, it’s just beginning.
You don’t have to be an OG to be legit! It’s cool that Bernie is an OG, but it’s not necessary for anything. Did he go to MLK’s funeral? I don’t think he did. Does that make him less of a civil rights activist? No; it’s irrelevant. What is relevant is a 50+ year track record of Civil Rights activism and public service. And that’s it. And yeah, there are lots of men and women who are on the right side of justice who have much shorter tenures and are no less important, and I’ll even say, no less viable as Progressive candidates. We need to get them out front and running.
The point is that all of this from this day forward has so little to do with Bernie; he just happens to be the hood ornament.
[quote=“rocketpj, post:17, topic:74046”]
I find it continually amazing to read any number of highly engaged people talking about Sanders (and Trump) as if their campaigns are somehow similar to the campaigns that have worked in the last 30 years or so.
Both of them are campaigning from the outside in, a huge shift. Kucinich tried it a few years ago and got basically nowhere. [/quote]
I’m not sure outside in is that unusual, that’s basically where Obama came from in '08.
I think the difference between Obama and Trump/Sanders/Kucinich is that Obama is fundamentally a progressive pragmatist. He’s very cautious in how he implements his ideas which is why you still get a lot of non-progressive stuff (NSA, drone strikes) coming out of his administration.
The thing that makes me nervous with the other three is they have a bunch of nutty ideas that you really wish they’d be able to filter out.
Ross Perot’s campaign was far more influential. Either way Sanders is planning to run as a democrat.
My real worry with Sanders winning, other than not quite trusting his decision making, is the general election.
Right now it looks like Rubio or Trump is the Republican nominee. Rubio is a member of the Tea Party, he’s far to the right of Bush and would be virtually unfettered with the large Republican legislative majorities. Trump if he wins is far weaker as a candidate but could really cause a ridiculous amount of damage if he became president.
Sanders is a self-identified Socialist, that may be fine in the Democratic primary but is very hard to sell to the public as a whole. I think you need to choose Hillary because you can’t afford to lose this election.
You know what. No. None of this. I’m sick of voting for the “pragmatic progressive” who gets fuck all done and who will bend over backwards to please their corporate donors, while kids get shot in the streets for being the wrong skin color, and the working class keeps sinking further down and the middle class keeps disappearing. The world is burning down for many Americans, and many people in the world for that matter (murder from above, wars of opportunities for resources, and a continued relationship with regimes that do nothing for us), and some of us are sick of the BS we’re being fed by the democrats as much as by the GOP. The pragmatic progressives (who aren’t at all progressive) are part of the problem. They are going to continue down this same tired ass line until we let them know it’s not acceptable. Fuck “party” loyalty which does jack and shit for the rest of us. We owe them nothing and until we send a message that we owe them nothing, they will continue to do the same old shit.
And if you think that the Clinton doesn’t have an electability problem in the general election, you are willfully ignorant.
So, I will not vote for Hillary, because she doesn’t represent anything I believe in or want to see done by our federal government. She’s another corporate candidate, who doesn’t give a shit about our little petty lives.
I agree with almost all of what you wrote. Especially the firey part, because this country sucks right now. And a year ago I would have agreed about not voting for Hillary if she’s the nominee. I said I wouldn’t, even here on the BBS. I’ve changed my mind.
Even though I don’t like her, I will still check that box next to her name in November: not because of her name but because of the D. And I will do it for a very specific reason: my gay friends and family have fought hard for the semblance of equality that they have. An R in the White House will put us on the path to rolling back those rights, and I just cannot live with myself knowing that I became a part of the problem.
The REAL solution is longer term, as you say: REAL progressives, not fake ass bullshitters like Hillary. I hate fake ass bullshitters. I want them all to go away. But in the meantime, I cannot leave the ballot blank, cannot write in anyone and will not check the box next to an R. I simply must vote for a D because I cannot see my friends and family suffer again. The inequality has to stop. If that means that all we have to choose from are sewage or toxic waste then I choose sewage, all the while wishing that someday we could have a better choice.
I think Hillary Clinton is a reprehensible human being, barely a circle of hell above the entire slate of R’s. But the fact that she panders to the people I love and would most likely not fuck them over as badly as a Republican would, then I will give her my vote if it comes to that.
Until that time, however, let’s raise up our goddamn wallets and give $$$ to Bernie, and hope for a brighter day and someone to believe in. I’m willing to indulge this fantasy for another month or two and try to get it to become reality. But if he doesn’t pull through, I’m prepared with my own personal plan B.
I really think Clinton is far less electable than Sanders in the general.
Yes, she’s more centrist than he is, but on a personal level, everyone made their mind up years ago. Republicans have hated her for decades, and Sanders is killing her with independents. Vote Clinton, get Rubio.
Hell, she’d struggle to beat a lunatic like Trump.
So? If a person is politically active, their own vote is actually the least they can do, and not in the sense that turn of a phrase is normally employed.
I can’t yet vote in my country, but while I will appreciate that franchise when it is granted to me, not having it hardly dissuades me. I go out and “pull votes” in election times, like hundreds of votes or more dependent on my time commitment.
Clinton was supportive of Goldwater, supporting that ideology. The fact that she might not have been able to vote at that particular time is immaterial in the extreme.
That said, she didn’t pull votes, or work for his campaign, or do anything other than admire him from afar. Goldwater also wasn’t a horned white devil despite his views clashing with those more inclusive and willing to model society with inclusive policy at some tiny expense to perceived, but not actual, freedoms stupid people claim are affected by programs like affirmative action and others Goldwater opposed.
If Clinton is behind Sanders in this respect, because she sat out a lot of the ground game Sanders went and got into, age may indeed have been a factor.
However, Sanders appears to have gone out and gotten into the mix based on his beliefs & convictions which would in turn be based on what he observed at the time. By comparative accounts, considering the way people often over time tend to soften the fiery convictions and beliefs they acquire in youth or when witnessing injustice firsthand, Sanders appears to have for the most part kept his flame alive. That is and should be appealing in an anti-establishment candidate. Especially one with the wit & wherewithal to achieve and hold high office.
In this respect, they are incomparable, because Clinton’s fire is so has been consistently and obviously of a different source. Personal achievement is laudable, but not for it’s own sake IMO, at least comparably. There are plenty of and will be plenty of status quo achievers, Sanders presents a unique opportunity Clinton cannot equal.
The thing is, Clinton, is pretty damn liberal - in the Senate she was more liberal than 70% of her fellow Democratic senators. Sanders was more liberal, but not by much, as they voted the same way 93% of the time, (I can remember the 90s when she was vilified by the GOP as an emasculating feminazi lesbian communist, so claims that she’s a conservative always sound really bizarre to me).
In judging those numbers, I think that “senator from where?” is highly relevant.
If Clinton had been, for example, the senator from Oklahoma, I strongly suspect that her voting record would instead be one of the most conservative of the D’s. She’s a poll-driven weathervane.
And then we’re boots on the ground in Syria and the NSA continues to wiretap us all because…terrorism! A vote for Clinton is a vote for the status quo.
Meh, that 538 piece is unexceptional in reveals, with context.
538-
“When she’s shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party.”
538-
“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%.
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.
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
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.
