What Will Change?

[angrychair]

Nothing. In my humble opinion, nothing will change with the "status quo" approach Clinton and her supporters propose. It is not my intent to sound short or disrespectful. If you support Hillary, I respect your decision and opinion, I just don't see it as a long-term winning strategy. Not with these Democratic voters and the electorate as a whole.

Let me explain.

So, current political thought is we will get almost nothing done with this Congress. Teapublicans are driving the bus. That the Senate is in play but unlikely. That we can't hope to flip the House until 2020 or 2022 and given all of this, the mindset for Clinton and her supporters is: hold tight to Obama gains, offer moderate, centerist proposals and have a willingness to make serious compromises, veto and filibuster attempts to revoke or gut the ACA and any number of other things and hope in 2020 and/or 2022....what? That maintaining a centerist, modest and realistic approach will inspire Democrats, these young Democrats, to support a massive effort to flip the House in 2020 and/or 2022? Now who is dreaming pipe dreams.

Look, do I hope we can, in Bernie's 4 or 8 years in office, achieve debt-free tuition for college? Yes. On universal healthcare or a medicare-"like" solution for healthcare? Yes. On paid family leave? Yes. I hope and think we can achive success on these issues and more. The margin of success, the real progress, on those issues depends a lot more on voters like us than it does in Sanders. He will be the first to tell you that.
What it will do, at the very least, is set the stage for that next "Bernie Sanders" like person. And the next one. And the next.
Real change isn't made by politicians though, they can act as a catalyst, but real movement is made by voters. The people who were fighting for civil rights didn't take the modest, centerist, realistic approach. They were and did, in some cases, die to achieve their goal.

We didn't put a man on the moon in 10 years from JFK's mandate by taking the modest, centerist, realistic approach. We pushed the envelope on our knowledge, lots of hard work and errors and what we could make work with known technology or invent on the fly.

When real change happens in America, the terms "realistic" or "centerist" are never the plan of action from those that drive and make that change happen.
If you really want to flip the House in 2020 and/or 2022, if you really want a presidency that matters and brings Democrats in and not shut them out: take risks, be bold and yes, dream a lot.

[peacebird]

1. Agree totally!

[uponit7771]

2. Those changes were preceded by concrete plans not magical numbers or nebulous slogans

[jeff47]

4. Plans like "I'll get the Republicans to expand the ACA"? (nt)

[uponit7771]

8. easier than starting over and more believable too

[jeff47]

11. More believable. The party that voted to repeal it more than 60 times

is now going to vote to expand it. And you call that believable.



So what's the specifics on the believable way Clinton will get the Republicans to vote to expand the ACA? What, exactly, does she do to make them change from utter hatred to loving it.

And when making your believable plan, keep in mind the only things Republicans hate more than the ACA are Obama and Hillary Clinton.

[uponit7771]

18. MORE possible doesn't mean more inevitable...

[jeff47]

20. You've yet to show it's possible at all. Much less "more".

How, specifically, does Clinton get the Republicans to vote to expand the ACA?

[tk2kewl]

5. i disagree with your characterization of bernie's ideas

and simply defeat your argument by saying that the moon shot was a pretty magical idea in 1960

[uponit7771]

9. No it wasn't seeing the V2 was already going into space 20 years before we landed. That was

... knocked down facts the second it was thrown up as an example.

Concrete plans and tactics are a good thing

[jeff47]

13. The V2 did not reach space.

The V2 reached about 80km. Space is considered to start at 100km. The moon is about 250,000km from Earth. 80km is nowhere near 250,000km.

Your claim is the equivalent of "I could walk out my front door 20 years ago, so of course I can walk to Dubai now!"

[uponit7771]

15. This is false (link inside)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket

V-2 rocket also became the first artificial object to cross the boundary of space with the vertical launch of V-177 on 20 June 1944.[5]

[jeff47]

19. Read your link.

At launch the A-4 propelled itself for up to 65 seconds on its own power, and a program motor controlled the pitch to the specified angle at engine shutdown, after which the rocket continued on a ballistic free-fall trajectory. The rocket reached a height of 80 km (50 mi) after shutting off the engine

This still has the problem that 1) the V2 did not enter orbit around the Earth, much less the moon, and 2) The moon is very, very, very far away, and 3) the V2 could not hold a human.

Citing it as proof that we were sooooooo close to landing on the moon is insane.

[uponit7771]

21. Strawman, no one cited as proof that it was close to a moon landing but the pieces for the

... moon landing were set decades before the landing.

Putting them together was the hard part, the proof orbit and a mamal could survive in it was done by the Russians years before.

In the case of Sanders we have proof that SP works outside the country by not proof that his numbers make any sense ... he doesn't explain how he's going to get doctors, pharm and hospital GROUPS to accept around half of what they make now

[tk2kewl]

14. if that's your measure then i'd say single payer works everywhere

but in the U.S. why is that?

Sanders tax and jobs polices worked for 50 years in the U.S. why cant they work now?

[uponit7771]

16. The US already has single payer in the form of the VA... it works here... just not in the

... unicorn plans Sanders things it will

[tk2kewl]

17. i guess i'll just have to take your for that

[angrychair]

7. First

"magical numbers or nebulous slogans"? First and foremost, did you say the same thing about "Change We Can Believe In" and the "Hope" posters in 2008?

The numbers are not magical. They are hard. They ask people to do things they are not comfortable doing. They admit that there are no shortcuts and free rides. That if we, as a nation, want to be success than we, as a nation, have to be willing to be that change we can be live in. That is hope.

[uponit7771]

10. Nope, cause there was plans and tactics along with a congress that could bring such...

... HRC and Sanders has a gerrymandered GOP congress and HRC is the onnly one saying she'll work around them

[Orsino]

3. The electorate.

The electorate who can nominate Sanders, then elect him president, is an electorate that won't put up with quite so much corporatist bullshit, and that will begin replacing the mushrooms in Congress with more progressive voices.

Looking at only half of one choice on a ballot eight months off and imagining it to exist in a vacuum isn't going to produce useful insights.

[redstateblues]

6. So what's the plan?

I hear no plan to help down ballot Democrats, no fund raising to help other Democrats, no plan to win back state houses, no plan to win back Congress. It takes more than words. Progress requires a plan of action. It requires allies. Slogans are great but they don't create progress.

[angrychair]

22. Ok

Progress requires people. The kind that will vote for Democrats. Sanders is much more likely to bring in those voters. To encourage and inspire voters to support and vote for Democrats. We don't need millionaire and billionaire SuperPACs or PACs, we need people.
Those people will fund raise for those Democrats running for office. It is going to require politicians focus on people and not PACs and corporate interests.

[WillyT]

12. K & R !!!