You have to fight for big gains just to GET small ones.

[Ken Burch]

You can't get increments if you never ask for more than increments.

[arcane1]

1. I thought we were supposed to not try, and be thankful for whatever scraps we get?

It's so confusing

[TDale313]

2. The art of negotiating

Ask for more than you're willing to settle for.

[RufusTFirefly]

3. Shoot for the Moon and you may have to settle for Hawaii

... which isn't too bad.

Rest assured that the corporate Republicans are going to fight anything we propose, so what's the point in helping them?

[Rilgin]

4. Think the Hillary Camp is confused on what happens to defeated legislation.

I think for some reason they think if you put a single payer system up for a vote and it gets defeated, that is the last time you can introduce it.

Just to educated them. Nothing happens if an act is defeated. You can resubmit it the next day if you want. Further, it does not change the existing law if it gets defeated so if Bernie is unable to get Congress to approve a single payer system, nothing happens to the ACA.

Republicans actually seem to have a better long term strategic understanding about the legislative process even though its in service of bad republican policies. Note they keep introducing legislation to repeal the ACA even though they know it has no chance of being enacted and 100% chance of Obama vetoing any bill that repeals the ACA. What introducing legislation does is show a political base your long term goals and pins congressmen into positions. There is a reason that Ryans first statement was he would submit a bill to repeal Obamacare.

Hillary supporters do not understand such long term process. Bernie certainly will introduce bills that will be fought by industry, the establishment, the Republicans and the Corporate Democrats. Even if he loses a fight to enact a bill, it has long term strategic benefit by showing that his campaign promises were not the usual democratic bullshit of go left during the campaign then turn into a moderate when you govern. It also identifies the congressmen, including democrats, who are against such measures. And guess what, he or the next president can keep submitting it. if its a popular measure, it will keep putting pressure on the obstructing congress critters.

As I said, the republicans seem to understand this. The corporate democrats clearly do not by their attacks on Bernie saying he can not enact his agenda.

[Armstead]

8. Bingo

[cui bono]

17. Nicely stated.

Not to mention the easiest concept to grasp: Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
It's so obvious.

They are just feigning ignorance to support Hillary.

Sad.

.

[99th_Monkey]

5. That is exactly right. Aim for the F*cking Moon, then fight like hell ..

until you're out of options/time/etc. THEN Negotiate.

[libdem4life]

6. One can sense when real change is in the air...when the time has arrived...when the messenger is

ready. This is the first time in my long life I've felt like I'll be a witness to a real shift in political and governmental and social change. When the People are ready, the Leader will appear.

[doc03]

7. Just look at what Presidents McGovern and Humphrey accomplished n/t

[Armstead]

9. What tbe HELL does that have to do with 2016?

[Ken Burch]

10. McGovern lost because of the Nixon dirty tricks squad.

Humphrey lost because Johnson forced him to get nominated as an all-out hawk on Vietnam.

No one who promised less than they did would have done better.

(Muskie's program wasn't all that different from McGovern's, aside from Muskie not being pro-choice, as far as that goes).

[doc03]

12. So them losing had nothing to do with them. n/t

[Ken Burch]

13. Humphrey wasn't seen as too liberal.

He lost because of the way things went down in Chicago.

The only possible candidate to Humphrey's right that could have been nominated was LBJ himself. I assume you'll concede that Johnson could never have been re-elected after Tet.

And McGovern didn't lose because his platform was ambitious. He lost because of the Nixon tricks squad. There was nobody to McGovern's right who could have put together majority support in '72. Scoop Jackson had no real popular support and could never have brought the party together behind him. Humphrey was never going to be able to, either.

No candidate who proposed just increments was going to beat Nixon.

Hill or Bill would have lost 49 states to Nixon too, if either had been able to time-travel back from the Nineties to run.

[doc03]

14. Humphrey said I will raise your taxes, McGovern even though he served

in the military came across as a wimp.

[Ken Burch]

16. You're thinking of Mondale on the tax thing, not Humphrey.

As to Mondale, the fact is that nobody we could possibly have nominated in '84 could have come anywhere close to beating Reagan...even John Glenn or Fritz Hollings. Reagan was going to take 49 states no matter what.

And Teddy Kennedy, whose views on most issues were the same as McGovern's, and who had been leading Nixon in the polls before Chappaquiddick happened, had never served in the military either.

There was nobody running for the Dems in '72 who wouldn't have been vulnerable to being called a wimp in some way.

[hobbit709]

15. You want us to act like this?

And it was "Hey you, keep your head down
Don't look around, please don't make a sound
If they should find you now
The Man will shoot you down"

[Armstead]

11. Exactly.