2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNegotiation: Clinton vs Sanders
Is the best strategy for negotiation with Congress to begin on the far left and negotiate toward the middle or to start in the middle and negotiate to the right from there?
Bernie Sanders would begin his negotiations with Congress on the far left with single-payer health care and a $15/hr minimum wage. Hillary Clinton would begin her negotiations with Congress in the middle with improving the ACA and a $12 minimum wage because the far left is unrealistic. Who do you think has more of a chance, after negotiations are over, of ending up with a $12 minimum wage and a public option addition to the ACA and why? Do you plan to base your vote on the presidential candidate with the best strategy for negotiation?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Besides, without enough Democrats in Congress ... the "negotiations" you speak of will be over before it even starts.
What's Bernie doing to help the party with down-ticket races to make Democratic candidates more competitive. (Aside from the quid-pro-quo arrangements with a small trio of candidates who are willing to engage in some mutual back scratching with Bernie... what's he doing to help the party?)
Actually, I prefer the candidate who has the best strategy for progress and finding common ground. What you think is Bernie's "strategy" doesn't exist. That may be how you'd handle things. That may be how you wish he'd handle things. But it won't happen. One, because that's not how Bernie operates, and two, because he won't be the nominee.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)and coattails are needed for that. Bernie has the coattails (enthusiastic voter base); Hillary (in the GE) does not.
As for negotiating positions, it's pretty obvious that you have to start as far left from the center, as the right is to the right of center. That's negotiation 101. And you can't cave immediately because you actually sympathize with the right's views.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)These "coattails" you mention are completely imaginary. And it's why down-ticket Dems and elected judges aren't as competitive as they'd otherwise be.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)and many feel that choosing between right wing and extreme far-right wing candidates is pointless.
Me, if it comes to it, I'll trudge in and do my duty, but hardly with enthusiasm.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and that's a shame. They had a chance to make a difference, and they totally BLEW IT. There are NO "perfect" candidates, but there are candidates who are more closely aligned to our personal beliefs and philosophies... there ARE candidates who are better than their opponents.
It's our obligation to choose the BETTER of the candidates who are running. This nonsense about "refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils" is total bullshit, and it's the sign of an immature voter, or a selfish voter who thinks that indulging their own vanities is more important than all other considerations.
Well, those people are fools.
I've been there.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Can you back your claim that Bernie voters don't read the whole ballot?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)By their own admission, over 11% of Bernie voters don't bother to vote in down-ticket elections. Compared to about 4% of Hillary voters. (Yes, I do understand that exit polling is, well, merely exit polling ... but considering the large difference between these two percentages, it does provide some interesting insight ... and it raises a lot of questions and concerns.)
www.salon.com/2016/04/07/how_one_down_ticket_election_in_wisconsin_shows_the_flaw_in_his_political_movement/
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Sadly, it does seem that only 78.5% of his voters listened to that part of the speech, vs Hillary's 92%.
We do need to do better.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)he proved his skills at pragmatism and coalition building and negotiating as mayor. He was known for getting things done, and was named one of America's best mayors.
Same skill set.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Many of the legislation he introduced over the years was totally reflective of what Democrats claim to stand for at election time -- but back away from when they actually have to go to work and govern. Then the mandates of corporate lobbyists take precedence....or fear of the GOP.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Ted Kennedy recognized that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)he fought for the same basic Medicare for everyone plan Bernie is fighting for over the decades. Alas he never saw it come to fruition.
Yes he understood the advantages of compromise and incrementalism. So does Bernie who voted for the ACA.
And yes the GOP...etc.
But the point is that people like Kennedy and Bernie should not also have to work so hard just to try and push recalcitrant Democrats in the right (correct) direction on so many issues.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Not every Senate seat is from Massachusetts or Vermont, unfortunately.
I would love to see someone primary Tom Carper though.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)1) give people enough credit that they will support things that are good for them and their neighbors
2)Work to actually sell liberal/progressive ideas and values to the public. The GOP is much better at selling their agenda. (until recently, maybe)
3)Too many of them seem to have their eye on that cushy corporate lobbying or consulting or "speechmaking" gig after they have done their time in office
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Republicans have a much easier sales pitch to make: government sucks, and the bigger it gets the more it sucks
We have to persuade people as to the merits of each and every thing the government does.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)k8conant
(3,030 posts)so Bernie Sanders.
djean111
(14,255 posts)the first place. And the GOP Congress hates her, except I think they would happily go along with Third Way slashing and war and fracking, just to show they are "bipartisan". There are enough DINOs now to give the GOP cover for any Congress people who are up for election soon, and don't want to be accused of working with Hillary.