Why does anyone think Hillary Clinton is going to get a different Congress than Sanders?

[Bread and Circus]

I keep seeing frantically repeated posts and articles suggesting Clinton will be able to get things done where Sanders will not.

But how?

Considering they will both face an obstructive Republican Congress, I think the terms of the equation are essentially the same. And as far as I am told, by Clinton herself no less, she is enemy #1 to the Republicans and the past 20+ years of history indicates they hate her with a passion of a thousand suns.

So how is Clinton going to get anything worth doing done any more than Sanders would?

What laws of political physics does she get to warp that the rest of us aren't seeing?

[kennetha]

1. Well, Sanders would cause a wipe-out for one thing.

He would help consolidate Republican control.

And he's got ZERO chance of getting elected president, anyway.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. No, Bernie is very popular with Independents. He has a much better shot.

Hillary is the one who will have people crawling over broken glass to vote against her.

[daleanime]

27. +1

[Duckhunter935]

33. ^^^^^ this

[Recursion]

45. Why do you assume those non-Democrats would vote D down-ballot?

If your premise is that Sanders attracts disaffected independents and Republicans to his ticket, it seems like a stretch to assume they'll also support their local Democratic House and Senate candidates.

EDIT: sorry, "non-Democrats"

[Motown_Johnny]

46. Because Bernie is telling us that we need a political revolution.

People supporting that point of view are unlikely vote for the opposing party.

[Recursion]

50. God, no.

People supporting that point of view are unlikely vote for the opposing party.


Absolutely, 100% wrong. People supporting that point of view (particularly people without party affiliation) are very likely to vote for the opposing party, if only to prove to themselves that they "see through" the "partisan charade" or whatever.

Sanders is attracting a lot of "independent" (ie, disaffected and low-information) voters to the polls. They don't care at all about policy.

[Motown_Johnny]

51. Not if they vote for Bernie (which I thought was implied)

To vote for Bernie (who is constantly saying that he can't do it alone, no President can) and then vote for (R)s is self defeating.


Even if independents are low information voters (which is an arguable point) they do see the ads and news stories, and even Saturday Night Live.

They still know the basics and to assume that a large number of them still split tickets, which undercuts Bernie's message, seems unreasonable.

[Recursion]

55. OK, but you need to wrap your head around the fact that a lot of people will do that

To vote for Bernie (who is constantly saying that he can't do it alone, no President can) and then vote for (R)s is self defeating.

OK, but the fact that it's self-defeating isn't an argument that it isn't going to happen. Low information voters (and that's most of them) don't care about policies. They don't bother to learn about them and if they do the opinions they form aren't consistent. People want both single payer and lower taxes. They strongly oppose defaulting on the debt payments and equally strongly oppose raising the debt ceiling, raising taxes, or cutting any individual spending items other than foreign aid. A majority support the idea of a minimum income, and a majority agree with the statement "the government already spends too much money trying to help people who can help themselves". 70% say we spend too much money on foreign aid and 60% say that amount should be reduced (meaning at least 10% of the public thinks that we spend too much money on foreign aid, but we shouldn't stop doing that). It's a big mistake to think the crowds Sanders draws are full of people who either understand or agree with what he's saying.

[Motown_Johnny]

57. You seem to be doing back flips to try and refute this.

Bernie is very popular with Independents. A large part of his message is that we need a political movement for him to implement his policies.

Low information voters only get the headlines. Those are some of the biggest ones. It makes sense that swing voters will be more likely to vote for down ticket (D)s if they vote for Bernie.

[Recursion]

60. I'm trying to introduce you to a very basic poli sci lesson you seem to have missed

Bernie is very popular with Independents. A large part of his message is that we need a political movement for him to implement his policies.

Stop there.

Those two sentences are not connected. LIVs absolutely don't care about what he's saying, just how he's saying it.

Understand that, or American voter behavior will be entirely incomprehensible to you.

[Motown_Johnny]

64. Not connected but both true.

The idea that the message is meaningless is something I reject.

[bettyellen]

49. that is no small thing, either. I wish I could believe his people will be working on those down

ticket races even if he is out of the race. But historically young people have not bothered. I truly hope there is sustained action, but right now, I would not bet on it.

[cyberswede]

4. What's a wipe-out?

And how would he consolidate Republican control?

[stevenleser]

39. I think 1972, 1980 and 1984 are all good examples of what to expect. Nt

[Art_from_Ark]

41. No they're not

That's just a ridiculous

There is no popular Republican incumbent. (1972, 1984)
There is no Vietnam War. (1972)
There are no Iranian hostages who have been in the news for 400+ days straight. (1980)
There are no White House plumbers. (1972)
Inflation is not a glaring problem (1980)
California is not going to vote for a California Republican (1972, 1980, 1984)

[stevenleser]

44. That's not the commons thread. The common thread is, the Democratic nominee campaigned

far to the left of what the electorate wanted and it allowed the GOP nominee to capture the center and define the Democratic nominee as extreme.

[Art_from_Ark]

52. That is pure unadulterated bullshit

Carter's biggest problem in 1980 was, first and foremost, the Iranian hostage crisis. It took up half of each nightly news broadcast for more than a year, and Carter was ridiculed relentlessly for it in the press. It made Carter look weak and ineffectual, especially after the failed rescue attempt. Reagan talked tough. No one knew he was secretly negotiating with the Iranians to release the hostages in exchange for arms.

McGovern had many problems to confront, not the least of which was his botched vice presidential pick (He picked a crazy guy to be his running mate! He can't be trusted!). And his main issue was the Vietnam War, which Nixon and Kissinger co-opted from him by announcing an end to American involvement in October 1972. And of course, Nixon's plumbers burglarized Democratic National Headquarters the summer before the election.

Mondale was a sacrificial lamb in 1984, because Reagan was gaining in popularity because his recession had essentially ended the year before, and Mondale was viewed as a relic of a failed presidency. And unlike what Bernie is doing, Mondale was unable to excite voters, while Reagan had the gift of lying and getting people to gladly swallow his lies.

The vast majority of voters from 1972 are gone, and a large part of the 1980 and 1984 voters are also gone. The Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc are also gone. It is a much different era today.

[stevenleser]

59. Take away your wishful thinking and you have nothing

Wishing Bernie can be elected won't make it so.

[Art_from_Ark]

67. Wishful thinking?

Last edited Tue Feb 9, 2016, 04:07 AM - Edit history (2)

You write scathing articles about Hillary one year, and fawn all over her in another. You pretend to be some sort of political analyst, but you have no understanding of the actual circumstances behind some important elections in the past.

And Hillary offers nothing for me and my family, just like you wrote back in 2008. Bernie best reflects my own political views and has at least shown that he will at least fight for what he believes.

[kristopher]

48. That's a good recap that really disproves the narrative.

To continue, in the face of those more granular explanations, to maintain that those losses were attributable to economic policies that 70%+ of the american public supports is simple lunacy.

[stevenleser]

62. It's wishful thinking sprinkled with faerie dust. It disproves nothing. Nt

[kristopher]

85. You aren't very good at analysis, are you Steve?

[tazkcmo]

76. You also thought

That Sec Clinton was the Devil Incarnate in '08 and suck at the Faux Snooze teat. You're hardly an accurate barometer.

[stevenleser]

81. Bernie also goes on Fox, so I guess you can't vote for him now

As for the rest of your nonsensical ad hominem post, see my sigline

[tazkcmo]

82. Sure I can

And will in spite of you're opinion which is entirely suspect and contradictory to your past positions. Spin spin spin. Dig that dizzy groove!

[stevenleser]

84. Only if you're happy being a complete hypocrite.

You're the one who brought up fox being a bad thing. Either be consistent or walk it back or be a hypocrite. Your choice.

I love watching you try to spin and squirm out of that!!!

[tazkcmo]

86. No squirmimg here.

Nor emoticons, spin, flip flopping or status quo here! I'm very happy with Sen Sanders and have been for over 20 years now. Consistency, integrity, humanity.

[Bread and Circus]

15. Based on what, your Freudian dreams about Hillary?

[Duckhunter935]

32. is that why you

Failed to accurately quote him in your other thread. Red baiting does not look good when you do it. Sad

[hifiguy]

34. Believe whatever you have to.

BErnie consistently polls better than HRH against the top Repigs. Has for a while now.

And HRH will profoundly depress the turnout of the left/liberal base while motivating Repigs to come out and vote against her. She's probably worth 2-3 million additional Repig votes nationally. Now THERE is a wipe-out.

[SheilaT]

37. Hmmm. Tied nationally with Hillary in the GE.

I guess she has zero chance of getting elected president, either.

[stevenleser]

47. Mondale polled even with Reagan at this point in 1984 and then lost by 18 points

that's what's coming if we nominate Bernie.

[SheilaT]

68. First off, it's 2016 not 1984.

Second, Reagan was a very popular incumbent running for re-election. He was probably going to be unbeatable, and Mondale was more or less a sacrificial lamb.

It's not even remotely a valid comparison.

[stevenleser]

69. No kidding...

... Mondale proposed a middle class tax increase. That's when the bottom fell out of his campaign.

Yet another thing he has in common with Sanders.

[SheilaT]

70. He was never going to win in the first place.

And Bernie is proposing tax increases more on the wealthy. What small increases would happen to everyone else will be more than off set by savings in health care expenses.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. They believe in unicorns then project those fantasies onto others.

[Rebkeh]

5. It's about skill in triangulation and other strategy, not Congress

I don't care though, I don't see the point in trying to beat the game while playing the game. You gotta have a lot of trust for that approach and for me, the trust is just not there.

[GreatGazoo]

6. Same Congress but "Sanders wants to do things Republicans don't like."

But Hillary ... (?)

[onecaliberal]

31. Republicans despise Hillary, so spare me that drivel. They'll oppose everything she's for.

[Hortensis]

7. Because voters often tend to "balance" their

Last edited Mon Feb 8, 2016, 07:18 PM - Edit history (1)

votes between parties with the notion that they don't want to give too much power to one. Stupid recipe for gridlock, but there it is. This effect can be stronger or weaker.

The thought is that, as Bernie is farther left than anyone we've ever elected to the presidency before, this effect would be stronger than typical. Since Hillary is very familiar and widely recognized as a MODERATE liberal progressive, much closer to most Americans in ideology, fewer people would feel a need to "play it safe" by voting for a Republican Congress.

Ideally, candidates up and down ticket send a unified message, and smaller candidacies are given a lift by association with the leader at the top of the ticket. If that were Bernie, many candidates would feel a need to go it alone -- and therefore be badly weakened.

[Bread and Circus]

19. So that's the though eh? Sounds like a bunch of self-serving mumbo jumbo....

In other words, bullshit.

[Hortensis]

73. You obviously want Bernie, but when

in your life has the great extent of what he proposes been supported by a majority on either side?

I would like to see most of what Bernie proposes enacted, but the fact is that most Americans not only do NOT want to go that far, many tens of millions are completely and passionately opposed to even mild changes to the left. I feel those last are a terrible drag on society, even outrageously irresponsible, but they are also very sincere in their beliefs and have the same vote as everyone else does.

Another fact is that Bernie almost certainly could not win the general election.

We will do what we can do, and what we not accomplish what cannot be done. I am well left of Hillary, but what I do especially like about her is that she offers a long and exciting - but realistic - list of things she feels a Democratic president can accomplish in spite of over-my-dead-body opposition from the right.

A right that is mostly ignorantly but determinedly dragging us toward right-wing fascism. Check out the GOP candidates for those who do not serve the wealth-controlling class. There aren't any. To various degrees they all serve mammon, all believe in weakening labor even further, and our next president may well be one of THEM.

[kristopher]

54. We're closer to Hillary in ideology? Can you be more specific about the policies involved?

This election isn't really about ideology, it is about policies that affect people's lives. We could make the discussion meaningful and focus on policy specifics if you'd help.

Where specifically do you see any policy where Hillary has stronger, broader public support that the one proposed by Bernie?

If you only see similar policies, it's because Hillary has evolved recently, isn't it?

Seriously what policy is there that gets Hillary more public support than Bernie's version does?

This is a democracy and the fact of public popularity applied to functionally viable plans* enables those desired policies to become the law of the land no matter the will of the Powerful Corporate and Industry players**.


___________________

*These link will take you to a broad comparison of countries by economic system and various measures of life satisfaction - including jobs and business.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511162609
Research source cited in the two articles below:http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/life-satisfaction/

Background
Measuring feelings can be very subjective, but is nonetheless a useful complement to more objective data when comparing quality of life across countries. Subjective data can provide a personal evaluation of an individual’s health, education, income, personal fulfilment and social conditions. Surveys, in particular, are used to measure life satisfaction and happiness.

Life satisfaction
Life satisfaction measures how people evaluate their life as a whole rather than their current feelings. When asked to rate their general satisfaction with life on a scale from 0 to 10, people across the OECD gave it a 6.6 grade. Life satisfaction is not evenly shared across the OECD however. Some countries – Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal and Turkey – have a relatively low level of overall life satisfaction, with average scores of less than 5.6. At the other end of the scale, scores reach 7.5 in Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland. There is almost no difference in life satisfaction levels between men and women across OECD countries. However, when looking at people’s education level, there is a clear difference: whereas people who have only completed primary education across OECD countries have a life satisfaction level of 5.9, this score reaches 7 for people with tertiary education..

Details by country...

World's Happiest Countries? Social Democracies
May 11, 2009
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/05/11/worlds-happiest-countries-social-democracies

These Are The Happiest Countries In The World
06/05/2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/05/these-are-the-happiest-co_n_7521674.html

Forbes Best countries for Business
http://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab verall

Rank Name GDP Growth GDP per Capita Trade Balance/GDP Population
#1 Denmark 1.1% $44,600 6.3% 5.6 M
#2 New Zealand 3.3% $35,300 -3.2% 4.4 M
#3 Norway 2.2% $67,200 9.4% 5.2 M
#4 Ireland 5.2% $51,300 3.7% 4.9 M
#5 Sweden 2.3% $46,200 6.2% 9.8 M
#6 Finland -0.4% $40,700 -1.8% 5.5 M
#7 Canada 2.4% $45,000 -2.1% 35.1 M
#8 Singapore 2.9% $83,100 19.1% 5.7 M
#9 Netherlands 1% $48,000 10.4% 16.9 M
#10 United Kingdom 3% $39,800 -5.9% 64.1 M
#11 Hong Kong 2.5% $55,100 1.9% 7.1 M
#12 Switzerland 1.9% $58,100 7.2% 8.1 M
#13 Iceland 1.8% $44,000 3.6% 0.3 M
#14 Australia 2.7% $46,600 -3% 22.8 M
#15 Belgium 1.1% $43,100 1.6% 11.3 M
#16 Portugal 0.9% $27,100 0.6% 10.8 M
#17 Lithuania 3% $27,300 0.1% 2.9 M
#18 Germany 1.6% $46,200 7.4% 80.9 M
#19 Estonia 2.9% $27,900 0.1% 1.3 M
#20 Slovenia 3% $29,900 6.9% 2 M
#21 Taiwan 3.8% $46,000 12.4% 23.4 M
#22 United States 2.4% $54,400 -2.2% 321.4 M
#23 Japan -0.1% $37,500 0.5% 126.9 M

**
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY APRIL 18, 2014

From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy

The original study:

From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACT

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

The last paragraph of their findings:

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

[Hortensis]

74. Tell me, what do you make of the last 40 years,

when the People of the United States dismantled most of the progressive programs, protective laws for individuals, and regulations on business, including anti-trust regulations, that were enacted by the two generations that came before? 40 years when we as a nation refused to even admit global warming was real, much less do anything about it? 40 years when more and more people have decided we need religion in government?

"We" did that over my dead body, so to speak, but the nation as a whole moved decidedly right -- right over the bodies of people like me.

Now, the tide is turning and we're moving somewhat left again, but most of those people whose passion helped tear down all those advances not only are still alive and voting, they consider their job of undoing the terrible "wrong turn" we took from the 1930s-1970s to be unfinished! They will return to the polls in 2016 to continue their revolution.

So, tell me, how the hell to you imagine we're going to turn into Scandinavia any time soon? We have a chance to build on the advances Obama has started. We also have the chance to lose everything.

As for Hillary's policies, DU would only allow 4 paragraphs, for little intros to only 4 of her detailed policies. So here's her link to check them out for yourself. Please do so. You should at least know what you plan to vote against. What you are opposing!

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

[kristopher]

83. I asked about specific policies and you simply ignored them.

Having a discussion is an exchange. I took the time to address you politely and thoughtfully; your reply was totally nonresponsive.

IF you can't talk about and defend the line of thinking I raised what does that say about your candidate's positions on issues? The obvious conclusion is that HRc's positions simply are not embraced by most people, right?

OK. That is your choice. I'll leave you with this to inform the post you made. The document below is the blueprint that guided how we got to where we are. We didn't change into this oligarchy by accident, and we aren't going to change back into a democracy by either accident or half measures.

Read the 1971 Lewis Powell Memo, "Attack On American Free Enterprise System"? This excerpt is from the archives at his university.

Law Home > Powell Archives > Powell Memorandum: Attack On American Free Enterprise System
POWELL MEMORANDUM: ATTACK ON AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM


On August 23, 1971, less than two months before he was nominated to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. mailed a confidential memorandum to his friend Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chair of the Education Committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memo was titled Attack On American Free Enterprise System and outlined ways in which business should defend and counter attack against a "broad attack" from "disquieting voices."

Initially the memo was viewed, and praised, by only a select few within the Chamber. That all changed on September 28 & 29, 1972, when the leaked document was the topic of negative treatment in syndicated newspaper columnist Jack Anderson's Washington Merry Go Round. With quotations from the document now public, the Chamber published it in full in Washington Report, the Chamber's newsletter. An off-print of the memo was made available to anyone requesting it from the Chamber.

Interest in the memorandum was revived in the early 1990s. The Alliance for Justice's 1993 report, Justice for Sale, mentions it prominently. The case for the memo being a seminal document in the neoconservative movement in the U.S. was made in 2000 with the publication of John B. Judis’s The Paradox of American Democracy. The Internet became a medium for access to the memo and for posting articles about it. Mediatransparency.org was one of the first World Wide Web sites to feature the memo, as was the official site of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Today the memo is both credited as having "changed America" and scorned as being "far out of touch with the concerns and structures of the current right."

Whatever it's influence, it has been and remains today the single most requested document in the Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Papers. On the fortieth anniversary of its creation, the Powell Archives has here assembled links to the memo and related documents from the Powell Papers. Lyman Johnson, Robert O. Bentley professor of law at Washington and Lee university School of Law, also wrote this piece in commemoration of this anniversary.

http://law2.wlu.edu/powellarchives/page.asp?pageid=1251

This is a copy and commentary from GreenPeace via Common Dreams:

Published on
Thursday, August 25, 2011
by Greenpeace
The Lewis Powell Memo - Corporate Blueprint to Dominate Democracy
byCharlie Cray
Forty years ago this week, on August 23, 1971, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., an attorney from Richmond, Virginia, drafted a confidential memorandum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that describes a strategy for the corporate takeover of the dominant public institutions of American society.

Powell and his friend Eugene Sydnor, then-chairman of the Chamber’s education committee, believed the Chamber had to transform itself from a passive business group into a powerful political force capable of taking on what Powell described as a major ongoing “attack on the American free enterprise system.”

An astute observer of the business community and broader social trends, Powell was a former president of the American Bar Association and a board member of tobacco giant Philip Morris and other companies. In his memo, he detailed a series of possible “avenues of action” that the Chamber and the broader business community should take in response to fierce criticism in the media, campus-based protests, and new consumer and environmental laws.

Environmental awareness and pressure on corporate polluters had reached a new peak in the months before the Powell memo was written. In January 1970, President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, which formally recognized the environment’s importance by establishing the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Massive Earth Day events took place all over the country just a few months later and by early July, Nixon signed an executive order that created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Tough new amendments to the Clean Air Act followed in December 1970 and by April 1971, EPA announced the first air pollution standards. Lead paint was soon regulated for the first time, and the awareness of the impacts of pesticides and other pollutants-- made famous by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, Silent Spring – was recognized when DDT was finally banned for agricultural use in 1972.

The overall tone of Powell’s memo reflected a widespread sense of crisis among elites in the business and political communities. “No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack,” he suggested, adding that the attacks were not coming just from a few “extremists of the left,” but also – and most alarmingly -- from “perfectly respectable elements of society,” including leading intellectuals, the media, and politicians.

To meet the challenge, business leaders would have to first recognize the severity of the crisis, and begin marshalling their resources to influence prominent institutions of public opinion and political power -- especially the universities, the media and the courts. The memo emphasized the importance of education, values, and movement-building. Corporations had to reshape the political debate, organize speakers’ bureaus and keep television programs under “constant surveillance.” Most importantly, business needed to recognize that political power must be “assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination – without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.”

Powell emphasized the importance of strengthening institutions like the U.S. Chamber -- which represented the interests of the broader business community, and therefore key to ...

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2011/08/25/lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-dominate-democracy

[frazzled]

8. It's not about that

There is no chance of Democrats taking back the House this year; there is a 50-50 chance of taking the Senate. Neither candidate will be able to pass any major legislation in that situation. Even if the Democrats take back the Senate by a small margin.

The issue is this: only one candidate is making wild promises of "revolutionary" change--a single-payer health insurance system; free tuition, etc. etc. These are things he knows have zero chance of being accomplished. They would be dead on arrival. So while one candidate is making realistic policy proposals, another is ... well, lying and pandering to get votes from the gullible.

[angrychair]

11. Realistic how??

You didn't answer the question...you used circular logic: it is because it is.
Your approach is incredibly clinical and capitulating to teapublicans.
We're only allowed to pass what teapublicans allow? At some point It has to stop being about them and their half-ass or less, compromises.

[frazzled]

13. Here's one example

Expanding the rules for benefits under the already legislated ACA is a hell of a lot more realistic (possibly even partially achievable through executive action) than trying to build an entirely new system from scratch. And yes, it would by definition have to be from scratch.

[Andy823]

21. Exactly

Bernie is a great guy and I have never once posted negative about him, but he has made way to many promises that he just can't keep. I do believe he feels he an do this, but how he will do it has not been explained. I agree with you that adding to the ACA, like
Clinton, and O'Malley wanted to do, has more of a chance of working that medicare for all.

I agree that either one of them will have a hell of a time getting things done, but you can make promises like Bernie has until he gets like minded members in congress that would push his agenda. That isn't going to happen in his first term.

[Dretownblues]

30. What exactly does Hillary want to change about

The ACA? I can't find anything where she gets specific about what she will change.

[stevenleser]

38. It's easy to prove. Tell me which House Republicans vote for Bernies agenda.

I'm happy to call their offices and ask them.

Name which house republicans will vote for a $15 minimum wage and which ones will vote for single payer. I'll save you the effort, the answer is zero.

Bernie is running as a transformative revolutionary candidate and he won't be able to pass anything transformative or revolutionary.

As far as your nonsense about handing over too much power to the republicans, elections have consequences. The legislative branch has to pass laws for the President to sign. If they won't pass anything he wants that's it.

[Bread and Circus]

20. Hillary promises to cure Alzheimer's for Pete's sake...

Not saying treatments aren't on the horizon, because apparently they are...

But if you look at her website she is literally promising to cure Alzheimer's.

Cure it?

From the medical research I recently read we might have treatments in 8 to 10 years.... but not a cure.

Don't talk to me about promises.

Her whole website is a bunch of promises.

[NV Whino]

9. What makes you think we (sensible folks) do?

[notadmblnd]

10. This is what I've been told.

A President Clinton will get around Congress via Executive Order. I was told that like it hadn't occurred to the person that a President Sanders could also get around Congress via Executive Order.

I also pointed out that a President Sander's might very well get congress to work with him as he is respected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and has had a good working relationship with his peers over the years. I even cited a link proving it.

The person totally rejected the article and stuck to their silly argument.

[Andy823]

22. Here is what i think

If either one of them want to get things done, they will have to "COMPROMISE" with republicans, just like Obama did. Now I can't see Bernie's supporters going for that, can you? I also think that those who have been running his campaign are not the kind to "COMPROMISE" either, they want things done their way and they seem to have left Bernie out of the loop on some questionable things.

I believe Hillary on the other hand can get things done by compromise, and no I don't think she will hand everything over to the republicans because she is bought and paid for. That's a right wing meme being spread around here at DU. Obama accomplished a lot, contrary to what you might hear on DU from the long time Obama bashers. It's the way things get done. I have been involved in management negotiations over the years, and both sides have to come together and discuss what they want, and then try and work something out that is good for both sides. The may way or the highway stuff doesn't accomplish anything.

[notadmblnd]

24. I see it just the opposite.

As I said above. Sanders has the record of working with and having Congress respect.

[Andy823]

61. Can you name some republicans

Who will work with him if he becomes president?

Even if he works with them, he will would have to compromise in order to get things done, wouldn't you agree? And while he may have some respect from democrats, republicans are NOT going to help him pass Medicare for all, free college, more taxes on the rich, or anything he asks for.

[notadmblnd]

75. From The National Review

none of his Sen­ate col­leagues, on either side of the aisle, think he could ever be elec­ted pres­id­ent of the United States; most of them even be­lieve he shouldn’t be.

But rather than earn­ing the frus­tra­tion and ire of his peers in the vein of oth­er Sen­ate hard-liners such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Sanders has man­aged to be re­spec­ted — even liked — by much of the cham­ber, ac­cord­ing to mem­bers on both sides of the aisle. The Ver­mont in­de­pend­ent ac­tu­ally has much more in com­mon with Sen. Tom Coburn, the now-re­tired “Dr. No,” whose hard-line op­pos­i­tion killed many bills in the Sen­ate but also earned him the re­spect of his col­leagues on both sides of the aisle.

Sanders also has been able to work well with his col­leagues. He’s passed bi­par­tis­an le­gis­la­tion and forged strong re­la­tion­ships with mem­bers of both parties in nearly 25 years on Cap­it­ol Hill. But most of all, mem­bers say, even when Sanders is ideo­lo­gic­ally an out­lier, he lets oth­ers know where he stands. He’s not the type to sud­denly stab a col­league in the back. And that’s earned him re­spect both on and off the Hill

“A lot of people here talk about what they be­lieve in, but they don’t act on it,” Sen. Mark Warner said. “He al­ways acts on what he be­lieves. “¦ We can agree or dis­agree, but you know where he stands.”

Law­makers on both sides of the aisle, in­clud­ing Sanders him­self, point to last year’s deal to im­prove the dis­astrous, scan­dal-rid­den Vet­er­ans Af­fairs De­part­ment as a high­light. After weeks of ne­go­ti­at­ing with a cadre of Re­pub­lic­an col­leagues, Sanders helped pass the deal on a 91-3 vote in the Sen­ate. “In a pretty dys­func­tion­al Con­gress I helped pass, in a bi­par­tis­an way, the sig­ni­fic­ant vet­er­ans bill, which in­creases health care to vet­er­ans and lowers wait­ing times, and I’m proud of that,” Sanders said. “That was a sig­ni­fic­ant step for­ward.”


http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/71225/bernie-sanders-is-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway

[notadmblnd]

77. Here are a few examples of the amendments Sanders passed

by building unusual but effective coalitions:

Corporate Crime Accountability (February 1995): A Sanders amendment to the Victims Justice Act of 1995 required “offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white-collar crimes to give notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.”

Saving Money, for Colleges and Taxpayers (April 1998): In an amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Sanders made a change to the law that allowed the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services.

Holding IRS Accountable, Protecting Pensions (July 2002): Sanders' amendment to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003 stopped the IRS from being able to use funds that “violate current pension age discrimination laws.” Although he faced stiff GOP opposition, his amendment still succeeded along a 308 to 121 vote.

Expanding Free Health Care (November 2001): You wouldn't think Republicans would agree to an expansion of funds for community health centers, which provide some free services. But Sanders was able to win a $100 million increase in funding with an amendment.

Getting Tough On Child Labor (July 2001): A Sanders amendment to the general appropriations bill prohibited the importation of goods made with child labor.

Increasing Funding for Heating for the Poor (September 2004): Sanders won a $22 million increase for the low-income home energy assistance program and related weatherization assistance program.

Fighting Corporate Welfare and Protecting Against Nuclear Disasters (June 2005): A Sanders amendment brought together a bipartisan coalition that outnumbered a bipartisan coalition on the other side to successfully prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing loans for nuclear projects in China.

Once Sanders made it to the Senate in 2006, his ability to use amendments to advance a progressive agenda was empowered. Here are some of the amendments he passed in the Senate:

Greening the U.S. Government (June 2007): A Sanders amendment made a change to the law so at least 30 percent of the hot water demand in newer federal buildings is provided through solar water heaters.

Protecting Our Troops (October 2007): Sanders used an amendment to win $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard, which had been stretched thin and overextended by the war in Iraq.

Restricting the Bailout to Protect U.S. Workers (Feburary 2009): A Sanders amendment required the banking bailout to utilize stricter H-1B hiring standards to ensure bailout funds weren't used to displace American workers.

Helping Veterans' Kids (July 2009): A Sanders amendment required the Comptroller General to put together comprehensive reporting on financial assistance for child care available to parents in the Armed Forces.

Exposing Corruption in the Military-Industrial Complex (November 2012): A Sanders amendment required “public availability of the database of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors” – an important step toward transparency that revealed the corruption of the revolving door in action.

Support for Treating Autism in Military Health Care: Sanders worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to pass an amendment by a vote of 66-29 ensuring that the military's TRICARE system would be able to treat autism.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

[Bread and Circus]

23. Yes, it almost feels as if they have magical thinking.

[redstateblues]

12. Bernie has virtually no allies

Most Congress critters will run as far away as they can from a proposed tax increase on anyone but the rich.

[bowens43]

14. Hill is the most hated politician in the country

Republicans would vote in unprecedented numbers to be certain to shut her down. Expect impeachment proceedings to begin on day one.

[jillan]

16. Exactly!!!

[treestar]

18. LOL if they did not do it to Obama

and they have to have some plausible reason.

[hifiguy]

35. Blammo. Drop the mic.

This is the correct answer.

[treestar]

17. Probably not, but she has a lot more foreign policy experience

and will be able to use the Executive Branch. She would be better at stopping them from overriding vetoes.

[notadmblnd]

25. Can't disagree on experience.

But name me some of her accomplishments as SOS.

[arcane1]

28. "able to use the Executive Branch" is a content-free statement n/t

[arcane1]

26. I have asked it more than a dozen times, and have received ZERO answers. And I know why:

Because the "Sanders can't work with Congress" is nothing more than a focus-group-tested slogan, and is not intended to be questioned or compared to reality.

[daleanime]

29. Actually I do....

I think Bernie will have more Democrats to work with then Hillary will.

[Ferd Berfel]

36. The question is MOOT.

Hillary won't win the GE if nominated.
Lack of interest on the left and the Right will be energized to come out just to vote against her.

[Change has come]

40. Think Grand Bargain Vol 2

Now with MORE Republican ideas!

[Recursion]

42. They'd probably have different coattails, but you can make an argument for whose would be better

If Sanders drags a lot of disaffected independents and republicans to the polls like many claim, there's no particular reason to think they'll vote D down-ballot

[scuciti]

43. Well, based on their records....

He was initially ridiculed, and many predicted an independent would be completely ineffective. But he found a way to work with congress.

From 1994-2005 Bernie Sanders passed more legislative amendments than any other member. His list of accomplishments in congress is several pages.

Hillary has virtually no legislative record, other than the "mistake" she made by voting for the war in Iraq.Unless you want to go back to her failed national healthcare initiative.

It seems to me that based on their previous record of working with congress, Bernie is a 10 and Hillary a 2.

[basselope]

53. Of course she would....

Due to democratic apathy, she would get a much more red congress and Senate to work with, if she even got elected.

[stevenleser]

56. Nobody does. What you wrote is a straw man.

Bernie is claiming to lead a revolution and is claiming to offer transformative policies. He thus has a higher standard of being able to prove how he accomplishes that.

You can't say "but Hillary..." To answer that. It has nothing to do with Hillary.

How does Bernie get his agenda passed. And if he can't, what is the justification for his candidacy?

[Bread and Circus]

63. Haha... nice one. Thanks for the chuckle.

[stevenleser]

65. Wishing won't make it go away. Nt

[Uncle Joe]

58. If Hillary gets elected the Republicans in Congress will no doubt do something like this.

Thanks for the thread, Bread and Circus.

[mythology]

66. Here's one way

How does Sanders effectively distance himself from his past comments that it would be hypocritical of him to run as a Democrat after the things he's said about Democrats? And how do the same Democratic candidates that he needs in the House and the Senate deal with having a head of the ticket who has spent a fair amount of time running down the party and the people in it? It kind of looks a little less than authentic to have said that you think these people are corrupt etc, but then vote for them now.

It's one thing in Vermont which is tiny, homogeneous and generally liberal with a candidate that started at the city level and worked his way up gaining experience with that same electorate over time. Now try that nationally and with a massive electorate that is dealing in sound bytes and is heterogenous and not as liberal.

[mvd]

71. They both will have trouble getting things passed in this Congress

But I at least want someone on my side on single payer, Wall Street influence, and war/peace like Bernie. If we had been thinking big before, maybe this country wouldn't be so far to the right. I don't think Bernie believes all of his proposals will happen right away, but he would be a good advocate.

[Nedsdag]

72. No! n/t

[Bettie]

78. Honestly, neither one of them

are likely to have a congress that will work with them.

Even when Republicans in in the minority, they are eager to stop anything from getting done.

In the end, all they care about is hampering anyone with a D after their name.

[Live and Learn]

79. They don't. They just think her strategy of not trying to do anything is more pragmatic. nt

[Kalidurga]

80. I think that it will actually be worse for Hillary as far as congress goes.

There is no way to prove this, but I think that there will be more Republicans voted in office in 2018, if Hillary by some miracle actually gets the nomination.

[MrMickeysMom]

87. That assumes Sanders suddenly disconnects from the biggest point of connection...

The constituents of the U.S.A.

WE have been the missing link that went to sleep. The call to WAKE UP and SHOW UP is significant in every congressional district.

My observation and question is - Who connects to WHICH leadership? I certainly don't see any future in connecting to another Clinton administration being any less inclusive than the one that decided to punish recipients of public aid.

She doesn't owe allegiance to anyone other than her biggest campaign financiers!