Why Bernie Sanders Can't Govern

[Beacool]

By Norm Ornstein
February 5, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s realistic attitude is the only thing that can effect change in today’s political climate.

Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz have something in common. Both have an electoral strategy predicated on the ability of a purist candidate to revolutionize the electorate—bringing droves of chronic non-voters to the polls because at last they have a choice, not an echo—and along the way transforming the political system. Sanders can point to his large crowds and impressive, even astonishing, success at tapping into a small-donor base that exceeds, in breadth and depth, the remarkable one built in 2008 by Barack Obama. Cruz points to his extraordinarily sophisticated voter-identification operation, one that certainly seemed to do the trick in Iowa.

But is there any real evidence that there is a hidden “sleeper cell” of potential voters who are waiting for the signal to emerge and transform the electorate? No. Small-donor contributions are meaningful and a sign of underlying enthusiasm among a slice of the electorate, but they represent a tiny sliver even of that slice; Ron Paul’s success at fundraising (and his big crowds at rallies) misled many analysts into believing that he would make a strong showing in Republican primaries when he ran for president. He flopped.

Is there a huge core of committed ideological conservatives who have not voted before because they had only “moderates” on the ballot? Other than the fact that no objective person could look at the policy positions of John McCain and Mitt Romney as moderate, there is no evidence; the only real parallel to draw on for the theory is Barry Goldwater in 1964. Important as voter identification and get-out-the-vote efforts are, they do not convince chronic non-voters to vote. And, of course, a truly purist ideological campaign would stir a clear counter-reaction on the other side, diluting its impact.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/why-bernie-sanders-cant-win-and-cant-govern/460182/#article-comments

Hillary would be a more effective president than Sanders. Counting on a political revolution to further his agenda is not a realistic expectation. Dreams and lofty aspirations are great, but at some point reality smacks us all into facing what's feasible and what's not.

[HassleCat]

1. More of the same

You like what we have now. Vote to keep it. Don't wade into the deep end. You don't know how to swim.

[HERVEPA]

2. Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz have zero in common.

Norman Ornstein of the American enterprise Institute. Quite a credible source. NOT

[Beacool]

4. The sources vary, but the message is the same.

Promising unlimited goodies that he has zero chance to pass is in some respects disingenuous. Pushing a realistic agenda will accomplish more actual change than dreaming of people uprising to force Congress to vote his way.

[HERVEPA]

6. More of the "Promising Unlimited Goodies" bullshit. Don't you folks get tired of the lies?

[Beacool]

13. What lies????

If anything, calling for a political revolution to pass an agenda is a lie. Pointing out the fallacy of that logic is not.

[TTUBatfan2008]

34. He's telling the truth about the system

It is corrupt as hell. The only way to fix it is getting corporate money out of politics. This would in fact be a revolution compared to our current system.

[Floridanow]

63. Monied interests.

Have been at the forefront of American politics since the origin of the nation. There was a time in our history where only land and property owners could vote.

What Bernie Sanders shows now and President Obama showed in his two races is that everyday people can counter monied interests by contributing to the selection of our leaders. The issue that I have with the typical Sanders supporter is he or she supplants logic and reason with passion and dreams - which leads those people to tune out if political change doesn't happen exactly as they want - and then what we get is republican domination in Congress and states when we have far superior numbers from a raw voter count.

[politicaljunkie41910]

83. Agreed. The hate here on DU from the Bernie supporters is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

[HERVEPA]

46. This lie: (below)

"Hillary Clinton’s realistic attitude is the only thing that can effect change in today’s political climate"
Total unsubstantiated BS.

[tazkcmo]

56. Should actually read:

"Hillary Clinton’s realistic attitude is the only thing that can change in today’s political climate in order to adjust to tomorrow's political climate."

[tecelote]

8. More... No We Can't!

Everyone that ever accomplished anything didn't listen to your argument.

We'll go with... Yes We Can!

America seems to agree since Bernie's numbers are still surging.

[frylock]

12. The sources vary, from moderate-conservative to right-wing.

[Armstead]

15. Republicans attack Democrats for promising Goodies -- I'm sure they appreciate....

you parroting their message and posting shit from a CONSERVATIVE think tank.

[Matariki]

25. Promising "unlimited goodies" to war toy manufacturers and investment bankers is immoral.

Even if it's the status quo.

[TTUBatfan2008]

32. Cruz has more in common with Obama

Corporate candidate who pretends to be a grassroots guy. He actually wanted to run as Establishment GOP guy for Texas Senator, but GWB refused to endorse him so he latched on to the Tea Party movement. Bernie is clean as hell compared to either of them. He fights for the people, even if his proposals have no "realistic" chance of happening.

[TCJ70]

35. OK, this keeps coming up...

...and I'm getting very tired of it. He's been clear, in every speech that nothing happens before congress changes. He's not promised anything until our political make up is altered. That is honest. That is what he's all about. Hillary has given up before she even tries, and would face the same issues a Sanders presidency would. Given her defeatist attitude, she is not the right person to be at the top as she doesn't seem interested in changing this situation.

[Beacool]

44. The problem is that Congress, at least the House, will not change anytime soon.

Maybe, if we're lucky, it may happen in 2020. By then we'll have four years of gridlock. If some of us feel like banging our heads against a wall, it's because we realize that there's no path for Sanders' very ambitious agenda to go forth. It's not out of mean-spiritedness, it's looking at the political reality on the ground. Politicians promise a lot and then can't, or won't, deliver. I prefer someone who looks at what can actually be accomplished and sets forth to find a way to do it. Will her agenda be as sweeping as his? No, but she may be able to get more results.

[OZi]

48. The problem is I want more than getting things done.

I also want someone who will block stupid sh*t from getting done. NAFTA, repealing Glass-Steagall, extending Bush's tax cuts and more bailouts are the kinds of things that come from starting in the middle. Time will tell if Obama has any unpopular policies to drop just before leaving office.

Hillary was for TPP before she was against it and I don't trust her not to put it back on the table. Even though she is pledging not to cut Social Security, "Politicians promise a lot and then can't, or won't, deliver."

Trust counts for a lot and I don't want to see more of the WRONG things get done.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. The only difference between Bernie's and Hillary's potential relationship with congress is that

they will begin investigating her from the second she takes the oath of office.

Like she's going to "be able to get things done" with a GOP congress? Right.

[Floridanow]

66. The issue.

President Obama honestly wanted to do a lot when he first took office. The problem is that even though he had a democratic majority in Congress, that majority had a large blue dog contingent. Then the 2010 elections came and the left of the Democratic Party sat at home because President Obama didn't give them exactly what they wanted - the result was that democrats in Congress were wiped out. I see similar dynamics forming if there is a President Sanders, his supporters will sit at home during midterms when he can't deliver everything they that they wanted - and republican domination of politics and reactionary governance will take a deeper hold.

[OZi]

78. The issue.

Obama was a New Democrat when he ran and didn't tell anyone until after he won. He never intended to do half the things he promised. That is why young people sat out the midterms.

[politicaljunkie41910]

84. That's what I've been saying all along. It will be at least 2020 when we have the next

Census and if we are lucky (and I think we can be if we don't blow it by nominating a self described Democratic Socialist who might just ensure we never gain control of the House again in my lifetime), we can benefit from the resulting redistricting and gerrymandering put in place by the GOP after the 2010 Census.

It's funny how Bernie said that Hillary wast a Progressive, when he gave the most self-serving convoluted definition of what a Democratic Socialist is during that last Town Hall meeting that he, Hillary and O'Malley had just before the Iowa caucuses.

QUESTION: Yes, Senator, some of your detractors have called you a socialist on occasions, and you don't seem too troubled by that, and sometimes embrace it. I wondered if you could elaborate on that...

SANDERS: ... Sure...

QUESTION: ... And just to show us what the comfort level you have your definition of it so that it doesn't concern the rest of us citizens.

SANDERS: Well, what Democratic Socialism means, to me, is that economic rights, the right to economic security is - should exist in the United States of n'America. It means to me that there's something wrong when we have millions of senior citizens today trying to get by on $11, $12,000 a year Social Security. It means there's something wrong when the rich get richer, and almost everybody else gets poorer. It means there is something wrong, and government should play a role in making sure that all of our kids, regardless of their income, are able to get a higher education.

Which is why I'm calling for free tuition at public colleges and universities, and why we have to deal with this horrendous level of student debt that people are having.

Now, what's going on in countries around the world, in Scandinavia, and in Germany. The ideas that I am talking about are not radical ideas. So, what Democratic Socialism means to me in its essence is that we cannot continue to have a government dominated by the billionaire class, and a congress that continues to work for the interest of the people on top while ignoring working families.

What this campaign is about, and what I believe, is creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top. That's my definition of Democratic Socialism.

[treestar]

55. then why not work harder on Congress?

All I see here is vague reference to Bernie's coattails. That miracle will not occur.

The defeatist attitude is a nonstarter. It's not a defeatist attitude. It's a knowledge that you just don't want to do that hard work. Congress will stay R because Bernie people are lazy. They want it to be Bernie's coattails, and when has that ever really worked? And of course it won't work. They want to keep their starry eyes on their Messiah President and not bother with even knowing who their congressional representatives are, not bothering to work on those campaigns.

There has not been one post in GDP about any Congressional seat. It's all Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

[Floridanow]

67. You hit the nail on it's head.

Sanders people expect that they, with large help from us, will elect Sanders and give him a Democrat Congress. While I think President Sanders and a democrat Congress can be done, that Congress will lots of bluedogs - Sanders voters will have to stay with us through midterm elections as we work to increase the democrat majority while replacing bluedogs with progressives. My concern, as happened with President Obama during two of his midterms, is that the left will sit out elections on a President Sanders and leave us to hold back a motivated republican electorate.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Hillary is promising 10 Billion dollars to expand, not end, the drug war.

How's that for goodies?

[appal_jack]

9. Indeed: AEI = neofascists in sheep's clothing.

Norm can stick his head back where the sun don't shine. His American Enterprise Institute propaganda is some shitty stuff.

-app

[Jefferson23]

18. Yep. n/t

[mcar]

21. But HRC bashing articles from

The Daily Caller, the Washington Times and Fox are A OK on DU?

[catnhatnh]

23. Yes-but note this

this is a trial balloon for whom they should try to yoke Bernie to if Trump implodes. It's actually an ass-backward compliment and recognition that he is in the race to stay...

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Haters gonna hate, atlases gonna shrug.

The american enterprise institute, lol.

And the same crowd tries to call ME a "libertarian". Fucking funny.

[immoderate]

30. They frame Hillary as a moderate, LOL! She is reactionary.

To my mind, Bernie offers the incremental progress we need. He is a New Dealer.

--imm

[SoLeftIAmRight]

3. Another clueless pundit who never saw this coming and...

hopes it will never be successful.

[Beacool]

5. I think that the clueless people are those who believe in esoteric promises

of policies that will not come to pass and only cause permanent gridlock. I rather have someone who deals with the reality on the ground and figures out a way to push some of her agenda through, even if it is in piecemeal amounts, than someone who won't getting anything from Congress.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

7. doing the same thing knowing that you will get the same results (or less)...

the changes that must be made are too important to fail again

Hillary will be able to do much less than Obama - much much less

[Beacool]

16. And Sanders would accomplish what????

Hillary and Obama are politically similar. Sanders is out in left field promising unrealistic changes that will be cut down in Congress.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

19. only the blind can not see what he has already done

it is not to late to join the revolution

[Thinkingabout]

59. Maybe his record is also blind, when it comes to getting things done

His record does not help Sanders.

[NurseJackie]

10. Hillary would be a more effective president than Sanders.

Hillary would be a more effective president than Sanders.

Of this, I have no doubts. Hillary is light-years ahead of Bernie!

[Armstead]

17. I'm glad you agree with writer fromn a right-wing think tank

[Thinkingabout]

60. RW think tank, what was said which is RW think tank.

In fact the RW are running ads against Hillary, looks like the RW is pushing for Sanders not Hillary.

[cascadiance]

11. Effective meaning allowing social security cuts, and passing TPP and more free trade, and more H-1Bs

NO F'ING THANKS! That kind of "pragmatic" governance I can do without! I'd rather get most of our electorate who's given up on the process reactivated when they see someone who will actually work for THEM and not those buying politicians in both parties with huge campaign spending BRIBES.

Perhaps this kind of governance doing things that Republicans want is "easier" to "get things done", but it is something that most Americans feel will work more to hurt them and than help them.

[Art_from_Ark]

54. Hear hear!

[Thinkingabout]

62. Kinda behind on the news cycle, huh.

[Armstead]

14. American Enterprise Instuitute -- a Conservative Think Tank...Try again

[mcar]

22. Again, the # of posts

touting RW sources that are applauded on this site are too numerous to mention - as long as they either praise Bernie or criticize Hillary. When one comments on the source, one is usually castigated for killing the messenger.

Bit of a double standard, is it not?

[Odin2005]

20. Translation: Hillary will give in to the Republican agenda and call it "compromise".

[Metric System]

24. Damn right!

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Any real evidence? Yes. The guy is already posing a serious challenge to the supposedly "inevitable"

Preordained party pick.

That right there is quantifiable evidence.

[jeff47]

27. I love arguments made out of nothing but flatulence from a right-wing think tank.

Guess what Norm? Clinton isn't going to have a Democratic Congress either. They are going to be just as scorched-Earth.

So how does Clinton govern? She has the same awful, terrible, no-good problems that Sanders would have.

[toothless dragon]

39. because she will give them everything they want

[jeff47]

40. Shhhh!! We're still in the primary!

Don't reveal the plan until the end of November!!

[Jarqui]

29. Another "hurry up - it's over" (and maybe nobody will notice Bernie) article nt

[Blanks]

31. That's what I've been saying...

"truly purist ideological campaign would stir a clear counter-reaction on the other side, diluting its impact."

That's why there won't be a revolution. The republicans will very likely control the House of Representatives after the election.

Because here's the thing. We hope like hell that our representatives will fight tooth and nail to prevent anything a president Cruz would try to accomplish, and that's what a Sanders presidency would like like: constant opposition. Since the republicans will control the house, they'd probably start impeachment hearings right out of the gate and nearly half of the country will cheer them on.

The country has been systematically gerrymandered for some time now. Paul Ryan is going to lead a revolution of his own, and it exactly the opposite of what we, as democrats, want to see.

[Beacool]

38. There's no "very likely" about it.

They will control the House for the foreseeable future. We have a better chance in the Senate, but I'm not sure if it will happen this cycle.

[Blanks]

71. The tea party swept in during the 2010 election...

There were tea party senators that won elections in blue states. I expect that the democrats will retake the senate in 2016 because of the dip in popularity of the tea party.

That assumes the DNC gets its head out of its ass and points out the strength of the democrats versus republicans, so it may not happen.

[jeff47]

42. You make a common mistake

Assuming that this change can only take place only in a single election.

Reagan's election utterly changed US politics. But those changes did not all take place in 1981.

[Blanks]

70. Democrats tend to work WITH the administration...

Even when that administration is a republican administration. Perhaps you've not been paying attention to the way the republican controlled congress behaves.

...and the republicans had some control of congress during the Reagan administration.

[jeff47]

73. And most of the changes started by Reagan did not happen until after he was out of office.

They really took off after the 1994 election.

Again, your window for these changes is way too short.

[Blanks]

79. Reagan's disastrous tax cuts...

We're passed almost immediately

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981

I don't know what kind of changes you're talking about that occurred during the Clinton administration that were brought about by Reagan, perhaps you can elaborate?

[jeff47]

80. Reagan changed the debate on the role of government.

He started the efforts to shrink the government and stop having it be a force for good in most people's lives.

But he really didn't get that far down that particular road by 1988. Welfare and a host of other helpful programs still existed, and were not yet underfunded into ineffectiveness.

Things really accelerated with Newt's "Contract with America". Which was only possible with the groundwork laid by Reagan and to a lesser extent HW Bush.

Heck, you could even argue it took Goldwater to make Reagan possible. Yes, he lost. But his "ground troops" laid the work for Reagan's victory. They're what started the think tanks and other mechanisms that "rewired" DC for conservative Republicans.

Those of us supporting Sanders are looking for a simlar "change the debate", this time in a direction that doesn't fuck over the vast majority of the country. And just like Reagan's election did not instantly change the role of government, we don't expect a Sanders victory to instantly change the role of government.

[Blanks]

81. You're ignoring a few things...

The take over of the MSM by the MIC.

I regularly see threads where people are offended by the handling of Sanders by the MSM. That's not something that is going to be overcome by repeating campaign slogans.

It is the MSM that has shaped the attitudes of Americans to oppose the policies that were historically good for America. It was the MSM that swept in the republicans with the 'Contract with America' and it is the MSM that is obsessed with 'the Clinton scandals'. If it looks like Sanders is gonna win, the MSM will enlighten us on all of the Sander scandals. Kerry was a decorated Vietnam vet while Bush skipped drills in the Texas Air Guard. That's how much influence the MSM has on the voting public.

Electing Sanders isn't going to shift the MSM to a pro-socialist democrat stance. I think the battle is much more complicated than a lot of people believe.

Reagan was just an actor.

[jeff47]

85. You realize they had plenty of help from us, right?

We pushed those changes along, quite happily. Even today, we have a one candidate who's utterly terrified of "raising taxes".

Heck, we even drove the bill that let the massive consolidation happen!

On the bright side, political media is becoming an anachronism. GenX and Millennials do not turn to them to find out what is going on, and the response of the media has been to grab ever harder to the Boomer demographic.

[Blanks]

86. I didn't help...

The biggest problem is that there are 'these people', a good portion of them fall into the category: 'my friends and family'.

But you're right, there is a demographic that pushed for the changes that most of us agree are bad changes. I don't think Sanders is gonna reach that demographic either though.

It's gonna take a shift in the way the democratic strategists market the party. The unfortunate thing is that we can't all agree on what that shift needs to look like. That's why 'middle of the road' candidates win. Everyone isn't happier with them, but they are less unhappy with them. We all have pet issues, and I don't agree with all of Bernie's solutions, and I think most of them won't come to fruition.

[toothless dragon]

33. l there lies and there are damned lies

and this of course is a damn lie... I heard it all before... and watched Paul Wellstone win in a State that all the pundits said he could not... He won with honesty and progressive politics and about $350,000 against a multi-millionaire corporatist...

[m-lekktor]

36. Norm Ornstein from the American Enterprise Institute is a right winger.

all you Hillary people ever have are right wing talking points!

[UPCDaisy]

45. Norm Ornstein, frequent guest on his friend Al Franken's radio show? He's a neither-winger.

Ornstein works for a right-wing think tank, all right - as an independent political scientist. Franken joked that AEI must have hired Ornstein as the token thinker.

Ornstein has written several books, one bashing Congress as deteriorating (under Dem and Repub majorities)and a more recent one discussing the "meltdown" of the GOP. His writing partner for both was Thomas E Mann, also independent, who works for the left-of-center Brookings Institution.

Just saying.

As for his article about Bernie vs. Hillary - I see his point, but we have not had even one primary yet so could all these experts save it for awhile? Let us see what happens in SC, at least, FFS.

[FSogol]

77. Ornstein is also one of the authors of the McCain Feingold campaign financial bill n/t

[beam me up scottie]

37. Why do you keep posting right wing hit pieces on DU? Do you share their ideology?

Norm Ornstein writes for the American Enterprise Institute, from Right Wing Watch:

American Enterprise Institute

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is one of the oldest and most influential of the pro-business right-wing think tanks. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism, and has been extremely successful in placing its people in influential governmental positions, particularly in the Bush Administration. AEI has been described as one of the country's main bastions of neoconservatism.

Background and History

Most of AEI's Board of Directors are CEOs of major companies, including ExxonMobil, Motorola, American Express, State Farm Insurance, and Dow Chemicals.
Big donors include the top conservative foundations, including Smith-Richardson Foundation, the Olin Foundation, the Scaife Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
Corporate supporters have included: General Electric Foundation, Amoco, Kraft Foundation, Ford Motor Company Fund, General Motors Foundation, Eastman Kodak Foundation, Metropolitan Life Foundation, Proctor & Gamble Fund, Shell Companies Foundation, Chrysler Corporation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, General Mills Foundation, Pillsbury Company Foundation, Prudential Foundation, American Express Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Corning Glass Works Foundation, Morgan Guarantee Trust, Smith-Richardson Foundation, Alcoa Foundation, and PPG Industries.

Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron, was until recently on the board of trustees of American Enterprise Institute. Other famous former trustees include Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-enterprise-institute#sthash.42r24cFE.dpuf

Why would you agree with a right wing nut job?

[Beacool]

41. Because it's a reasonable article.

I happen to agree with his conclusions. If Obama found opposition in Congress when it was still in Democratic hands, it will seem like nothing compared to what Sanders will encounter when he tries to pass his very ambitious agenda.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Of course you do, thanks for admitting it!

[mikehiggins]

69. Really can't let that one go by

The GOPukes oppose Obama because he is black. He could propose a bill paving Wall Street with gold and they would still oppose him. That is because he is, in their view, uppity. And yeah I know exactly what that term means.

A black man in the White House might be okay if he's in a waiter's outfit, but President? Come on, get serious. The night of his inaugeration GOPuke leaders met in Washington to agree to do NOTHING that might advance Obama's "left-wing, radical Islamic, Communist, Socialist, Muslim, Shiara Law programs"

He should really be given a gold medal for getting as much done as he could but none of that was easy or even likely. He probably should go down in history as one of the most effective Chief Executives in modern times considering the massive, continuous opposition (not resistance but active opposition) against any part of his agenda. You think HRC would be more effective because she knows how to cut a deal?

Take this to the bank, Beacool. They dislike and resent Obama for rising above his roots in an outstanding accomplishment of the American Dream. They dislike Bill Clinton, the son of an abused mother who had to drive his stepfather out of his house by force of arms.

They HATE Hillery. Literally hate her. I have known "these people" since I was in High School and even I am surprised by how deep rooted and sincere they are in their hatred of her.

Even the balding left-wing Jew from Brooklyn Vermont would have a better chance of moving things on than HRC. She is not a "world class" politician or stateswoman anymore than Bill really feels our pain. Putting our chips on her number is maybe even a greater gamble than backing the Larry David lookalike.

Lets choose someone who has a goal (or goals) that far surpass what may be possible in expectation that the most we will accomplish is to move the goal posts out of the spiral towards fascism they now display.

Like Chump says, you don't negotiate a deal of any kind by agreeing to what the other side wants from the outset. Doing that, like ransoming hostages, just encourages the other side to demand more.

Obviously I disagree with your enthusiasm for your candidate. I do admire your persistence however.

On to the Super Bowl!

[libdem4life]

72. Thanks. Well written analysis, IMO.

[senz]

75. Plus Hill's lack of governing experience vs. Bernie's very successful mayorality.

Bernie was a natural as Mayor of Burlington; the people loved him and he loved serving them. He was hands on, responsive, effective. He was reelected three times, defeating both Democratic and Republican candidates before running for the House of Representatives.

Bernie would make an outstanding president; his wisdom and judgment will serve us well, and he will put citizens first.

We need him.

[Fearless]

47. This is silly contentless commentary from a biased source.

[Logical]

49. The stuff you post cracks me up, you look desperate as hell. Nt

[craigmatic]

50. The best we can hope for from either one of them is a president who holds

the line on protecting Obama's legacy. The next president won't have congress to pass their agenda so we'll be in a holding pattern. In short we'll be looking for our version of the first bush.

[hobbit709]

53. No matter how many times you tell yourself this, it will not come true.

[bowens43]

57. more defeatest bullshit.....this guy doesnt get it , SHE and those like her are the problem

it's time to clean house in the Democratic party, there is no place for centrist bullshit. Hillary is a prgressives nightmare.

[peacebird]

58. Hillary's newest slogan "No We Can't" & "Let's Keep America Mediocre"

After all, everyone can't have health care and good paying jobs. That stuff is for the .01%ers like me!

[senz]

74. +1000

Sums it up.

[tazkcmo]

61. More bullshit.

Hillary can get things done...with her Enemy Number One...here's her list of Progressive Achievements:

1. Nada
2. Null
3. Zilch

[Thinkingabout]

64. Hillary is proposing an agenda which can be achieved, reality,

Just because Sanders says revolution it will not happen, he will not get his agenda through Congress, he has sponsored bills and they did not make it to the floor to get a vote. He said he wrote Obamacare, no, he tried to get universal healthcare, it did not make the final bill. He has offered his Medicare for all bill, it did not make it through committee. He has been in congress for twenty five years, he knows his agenda will not happen, he just leaves this out of his revolution.

[kristopher]

65. As a Bernie Supporter I say You are absolutely correct.

At least, the line below is correct; the question is, when are You going to realize what reality actually is.

"...at some point reality smacks us all into facing what's feasible and what's not."

The economic structure we have built over the past 40 years is not sustainable and Hillary is not the agent of change.

IT will start now under Bernie or later led by someone else after another economic disaster.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

68. Hillary working with Rs under Bush Adm...might as well be

reminiscing about Tip and the Gipper (queue Chris Matthews).

Hillary will be less effective than Obama. Neither has a hope in hell to accomplish anything during the first term. This election is about setting a path for the future. The revolution comes in Bernie's second term. Hillary has hundreds of endorsements to Bernie's 2. Hillary has to make sure they all keep their pro-status quo jobs.

[NowSam]

76. Why Hillary Can't Govern

It is said that it is because she is despised and distrusted. It appears that she is perceived as having clear contempt for the electorate. She is for fracking which is against the health of the planet and the the inhabitants. She is pro Monsanto which is against the health and wellbeing of the people and the planet. She is for more war. War war war. It is said the banks own her and her decisions help the too big too fail financial institutions but don't help the poor and impoverished. People believe that she makes poor decisions on the world stage. That she was for universal health care then against it then for it and against it. People think she will say anything to get elected. She can't govern because she won't have the good will of the people. Many people believe that her operatives cheated in Iowa. In my opinion it would be a grave error to have her preside over the people.

Bernie is perceived as to be caring for the children, the aged, the poor, the sick, the veterans, and for peace and a greener Earth. He will have the good will of the people and govern as a beloved president.

Put aside confirmation biases for a moment and ask yourself do you want more of what has been dished out for the last few decades?

Or do you want to work together for a better world for all? Bernie has won the heart of the Nation because we believe him. We've all known Hillary for years and it's hard to repackage that "Brand" and sell it to the people. We are tired of brands and sales pitches. We want change. Bernie offers that and that is my response to your post.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. Same old stuff

again