This is my biggest fear. I love Bernie Sanders. I think he would be the best president the U.S. has ever seen, and I think he has a real shot. However, I'm terrified that young people won't vote....
This is my biggest fear. I love Bernie Sanders. I think he would be the best president the U.S. has ever seen, and I think he has a real shot. However, I'm terrified that young people won't vote. That they'll consider it a waste of time or not worth it or whatever. This may be preaching to the choir here, however: Bernie supporters, seriously, vote. In the primaries and the general elections. Tell every Bernie supporter you know to vote as well. Explain that Bernie seriously can not win without the votes of young voters. Bernie has given so much for the American people, the least you can do in return is clear two days to vote.
I think Sanders' views are probably most closely aligned with my own political values of any of the candidates. However, Sanders' career in Washington shows one thing extremely clearly: He cannot...
I think Sanders' views are probably most closely aligned with my own political values of any of the candidates.
However, Sanders' career in Washington shows one thing extremely clearly:
He cannot for the life of him manage to cooperate to get things done.
Therefore, irrespective of his values, his voting history, his past political actions, his background, his views and everything else he's ever done as a politician, he cannot, and will not be a president that can accomplish his agenda.
When you've been the guy who for 40 years has been unwilling to compromise on anything, you cannot be an effective leader. You require a huge majority in both houses to get anything done.
Democrats seem unwilling to acknowledge this because it's uncomfortable. If there's one thing the Republicans consistently show, it's that a cynical and calculating party leadership wins you elections
Sanders will be an ineffective and lackluster president. (Biden, Sanders and Trump are all too old to hold the highest office. Younger people will be more effective.)
I disagree. First, I'm going to put aside the "amendment king" title, since admittedly it's a bit of a selective figure. I'll say that Bernie has been average or above by various measures of...
I disagree.
First, I'm going to put aside the "amendment king" title, since admittedly it's a bit of a selective figure. I'll say that Bernie has been average or above by various measures of "getting things done," but for the sake of argument I won't push that.
With that out of the way, we have to confront the fact that the GOP is explicitly unwilling to compromise, and will obstruct their opposition using every tool at their disposal, even if it flies in the face of precedent or, to the extent that they are able to break it, the law. Compromise is an important thing if we can rely on good faith negotiations, which we clearly can't.
So, if we get a Democrat who can compromise with Republicans, all that ultimately means is that they can get Republicans to agree to do things that they wanted to do anyway. It just greases their wheels, letting them accomplish whatever their goals they want to accomplish, while stalling literally everything else. A Democrat with a progressive platform is, in my opinion, no worse off at affecting positive change, and if anything more so because they have the bully pulpit and are actually trying.
Second, we've seen in the past couple of elections that progressive messaging works, and pivoting to the center does not. Obama won on hope and change, Clinton lost on stay the course. Obviously there's more to it than that, but a boring candidate doesn't get people to show up to the polls. Say what you will about Trump, he's not boring, and he at least promised something, even if it ended up being complete horseshit.
Finally, I can't take seriously the claims that Democrats need to pivot to the center, because they have, for decades, while the Republicans haven't. Republicans barely ever entertain the idea, and almost never once Trump won and brought down-ticket representatives with him. We've been moving right as a country for decades, with disastrous consequences.
Nominating another run-of-the-mill centrist is like we're playing the prisoner's dilemma, but our partner has betrayed us before and swore they'd do it again.
Reposting what I've previously said, but as sad as it is, I don't expect compromise between parties. I anticipate, like under Obama (by no means a particularly left democrat), the president will...
As sad as it is, I'm not really referring to compromise between parties. I'm referring specifically to all the Democratic policy that only passed due to the president compromising with Southern & Blue Dog democrats
Reposting what I've previously said, but as sad as it is, I don't expect compromise between parties. I anticipate, like under Obama (by no means a particularly left democrat), the president will need to compromise with Southern & Blue Dog democrats to pass policy
Compromise is overrated. Obama tried it for eight years and Republicans continually showed they will not act in good faith. Trump, if anything, has demonstrated that the executive does actually...
He cannot for the life of him manage to cooperate to get things done.
Compromise is overrated. Obama tried it for eight years and Republicans continually showed they will not act in good faith. Trump, if anything, has demonstrated that the executive does actually have a good deal of power. I would prefer a stalwart like Bernie who won't be fooled by Lucy's football for eight years. Bernie is the only one who has shown the ability and willingness to build and maintain a grassroots movement. Time has shown again and again that grassroots movements are how we accomplish big change. Worker's rights, women's rights, civil rights, LGBTQ rights, were all won on the street before legislators saw the light.
Even if what you're saying is true, (I'm actually Canadian so I'm not too familiar with what you mean by his history in Washington, though I have closely followed this election and the previous)...
Even if what you're saying is true, (I'm actually Canadian so I'm not too familiar with what you mean by his history in Washington, though I have closely followed this election and the previous) I'd rather have the president who tries and fails to do the right things than the president who succeeds at compromising and does little anyway or straight up goes against my views like Biden and Trump. I do see what you're saying about Bernie, however, like you even said, he is a man of character who has stood up for what's right for longer than you've probably been alive.
When Bernie fought for the civil rights over half a century ago, would you have said that? What about when he fought for LGBT rights in the 80s (70s)? What about now that he's fighting for marijuana legalization? Medicare for all? Free college? Should we just say, "Oh he'll never accomplish anything!" and give up? I don't think so. I say we fight for what's right.
ETA: I also want to add that even though Sanders is very old, he's the youngest candidate at heart. Much "hipper" than any other candidate in the race.
I'd pick a president that compromises and gets something done over a president who sticks inflexibly to their ideals and does not get any of their agenda effectuated through legislation. In this...
I'd pick a president that compromises and gets something done over a president who sticks inflexibly to their ideals and does not get any of their agenda effectuated through legislation.
In this case perfect is the enemy of better. If you push for an ideal, don't get a majority and consequently don't get legislation passed, you're left with the status quo: No improvement. There is limited legislative time. Failed votes means not getting something done where something else could have been accomplished.
What matters to real people are improvements in their lives. Often that happens step by step towards political ideals. Change happens incrementally. Improvement by improvement.
Politics is about power. About majority. About writing laws and changing lives. That happens through compromise. No-one gets exactly the bill they want. You need compromise for majority.
Sanders has a history of 40 years in politics where his voting record shows he is inflexible, unwavering and has been one of the congresspeople to get the least influence done in the longest tenure currently in office.
Sanders is a great minority opposition figure, where you just need to win the next election so you in the future can get a majority on your issues. He will be a terrible majority leader and consequently president.
Again, my personal political views probably align most closely with his campaign, but I'm convinced others will be able to enact more of those views into actual change in society, into taxpayer spending.
My concern regarding age is not one of being out of touch, but of physical ability to do the extremely demanding job the presidency is. here younger people will necessarily be better at performing the highest office.
I'd pick a president that compromises and gets something done over a president who sticks inflexibly to their ideals and does not get any of their agenda effectuated through legislation.
In this case perfect is the enemy of better. If you push for an ideal, don't get a majority and consequently don't get legislation passed, you're left with the status quo: No improvement. There is limited legislative time. Failed votes means not getting something done where something else could have been accomplished.
What matters to real people are improvements in their lives. Often that happens step by step towards political ideals. Change happens incrementally. Improvement by improvement.
Politics is about power. About majority. About writing laws and changing lives. That happens through compromise. No-one gets exactly the bill they want. You need compromise for majority.
Okay, except I don't think anyone is saying Bernie would get nothing done. Obviously, Bernie would get SOME parts of his agenda accomplished. Yes, big things like taxing the rich as high as Bernie...
I'd pick a president that compromises and gets something done over a president who sticks inflexibly to their ideals and does not get any of their agenda effectuated through legislation.
Okay, except I don't think anyone is saying Bernie would get nothing done. Obviously, Bernie would get SOME parts of his agenda accomplished. Yes, big things like taxing the rich as high as Bernie wishes to, or free college, or M4A probably won't be achieved in Bernie's term or terms. But to imply he'd not accomplish anything at all in 4-8 years is ludicrous, in my opinion.
In this case perfect is the enemy of better. If you push for an ideal, don't get a majority and consequently don't get legislation passed, you're left with the status quo: No improvement. There is limited legislative time. Failed votes means not getting something done where something else could have been accomplished.
Well, to start, I consider Bernie far from perfect. If anything, to me, Bernie is the "better" you describe. I'm a full blown communist, really, so to me, Bernie is a push towards better and every other candidate represents status quo. I think this is where we agree, but disagree on the finer details . I'd rather have a candidate who attempts "better" and fails than a candidate who attempts status quo and succeeds. Additionally, if Bernie can't accomplish much, at the very least he's getting the ball rolling. He's opening the doors for future candidates. He's trying. What more can I ask?
What matters to real people are improvements in their lives. Often that happens step by step towards political ideals. Change happens incrementally. Improvement by improvement.
And I agree. However, once again, you're assuming that Bernie would get nothing done. I don't believe that to be the case. It would be impossible for him to achieve nothing good. This is also where "opening the door," comes into play. Again, I think that's all I can ask. I'm asking for drastic change here. All I can do is hope Bernie makes the small improvements and makes way for more in the future.
Politics is about power. About majority. About writing laws and changing lives. That happens through compromise. No-one gets exactly the bill they want. You need compromise for majority.
And once again, I think we agree about the broad but the specific is the difference between us. To reiterate, the options for me are better and status quo. I'd rather work towards better and fail in most ways (but not all) than compromise on status quo and worse and end up with one of the two. Either way, to me, you're left with status quo. Not better.
Sanders has a history of 40 years in politics where his voting record shows he is inflexible, unwavering and has been one of the congresspeople to get the least influence done in the longest tenure currently in office.
Maybe in office. But outside of the office, I can't agree. You can't deny that he inspires and encourages people, especially younger people, to fight and take a stand. I probably wouldn't be discussing this right now if Sanders weren't in the race. And that goes for a lot of people my age. You may say this is useless in the short term and you may be right. But in the long term, I think Bernie will have done the most good simply by fighting the fight and encouraging younger voters to think, look into the issues, and push for change.
My concern regarding age is not one of being out of touch, but of physical ability to do the extremely demanding job the presidency is. here younger people will necessarily be better at performing the highest office.
Well, I do see where you're coming with this. I even fear myself that he may just up and die if elected, leaving us with nothing.
I'd also like to thank you for writing this comment. You haven't changed my mind, but you're sparking discussion and making me think. This is important, and more than I'd ever get on Reddit or most places on the internet where the conversation would probably be "You are dumb and Bernie is bad." And then one of us would get downvoted and our comments hidden.
Completely disagree. We are past the point of Republicans entertaining compromise for progressive legislation. If Republicans retain control of the Senate, they may pass low-key bipartisan bills...
If you want to actually have an impact and pass legislation under that scenario, it is going to require compromise.
Completely disagree. We are past the point of Republicans entertaining compromise for progressive legislation. If Republicans retain control of the Senate, they may pass low-key bipartisan bills and budgets, but they will not compromise on a prominent bill that could become the next ACA and ultimately garner widespread popularity across party lines. The days of Republicans at least faking a good faith effort to legislate are long gone, and the chances of a potential swing vote in the Senate like Mitt Romney suddenly growing a spine to support mildly progressive policies are irrespective of which Democrat becomes president.
Is that really the case anymore? I think the last ten years have shown us that the Republican party is absolutely uninterested in multiparty governance. That's not likely to change in the near...
The issue is that whoever is President is extremely likely to have a split Congress with the Senate remaining under the leadership of Mitch McConnell. If you want to actually have an impact and pass legislation under that scenario, it is going to require compromise.
Is that really the case anymore? I think the last ten years have shown us that the Republican party is absolutely uninterested in multiparty governance. That's not likely to change in the near future, and I don't think we should be preemptively pushing for a president who persistently wastes time and effort reaching across the aisle, only for that extended hand to be slapped down for the thousandth time in a row. We had quite enough of that during the Obama years.
And frankly, I doubt any Democratic president, no matter their intentions, would be able to work with a Republican Senate. However, the map for the Senate elections in 2020 is perfectly winnable, so rather than make a futile attempt at electing someone who can work with Mitch McConnel, I think we'd do better to remove the need.
Again, your argument is that America should have a bad pres. who does little good over a good pres. who does little good. Sure sure, makes sense. Either way, don't you agree that Bernie could be a...
Again, your argument is that America should have a bad pres. who does little good over a good pres. who does little good. Sure sure, makes sense. Either way, don't you agree that Bernie could be a "gateway" pres. of sorts? Set a precedent, and make way for more centre left and left wing presidents?
As for "does not have the votes," have you not been paying attention? Remember how we got here? Bernie polls really well. Especially among the young crowd. And, IIRC, he has the most donations. The American people do love Bernie and he really does have a shot. As for "political will," I don't even know where to begin with that. Bernie has the MOST will. That's why he's been consistently fighting for the rights of Americans for, again, over half a century. That's why his politics have never wavered. If anything, your argument is that he has TOO MUCH will for his own good.
And as for "Yeah, well no matter how old someone is at heart, what matters is the age of their actual heart," I can't agree. why does it matter how old he's been alive for? He's more progressive and active than most young people. Shouldn't what matters be that he acts young, not how recent he's been alive? If you think Bernie acts too old, I implore you to look at the way he's been campaigning. No other candidate acts as fun and as young as Bernie does. Every other candidate is a corporate puppet in a suit. Bernie is a human being with a will and a way. He's the only candidate that stands for the people and for that I support him.
I think you're a bit strawman-ey and a bit cynical. @dubteedub seems to be indicating he'd prefer a candidate willing to compromise in order to pass policy over a candidate who would not be...
I think you're a bit strawman-ey and a bit cynical. @dubteedub seems to be indicating he'd prefer a candidate willing to compromise in order to pass policy over a candidate who would not be willing to compromise and therefore would not pass policy.
I could agree with the argument if there are recent examples of meaningful legislation being passed that was bipartisan and both parties compromised rather than steamrolled. I'd agree with others...
I could agree with the argument if there are recent examples of meaningful legislation being passed that was bipartisan and both parties compromised rather than steamrolled. I'd agree with others that it's better to elect an president based on ideals where little will be legislated rather than a president that is very moderate and continues the status quo.
As sad as it is, I'm not really referring to compromise between parties. I'm referring specifically to all the Democratic policy that only passed due to the president compromising with Southern &...
As sad as it is, I'm not really referring to compromise between parties. I'm referring specifically to all the Democratic policy that only passed due to the president compromising with Southern & Blue Dog democrats
Okay, somewhat fair, but the issue here is that you're saying that Bernie would pass no policy. I don't think this is the case. He would not accomplish all his goals, but to say he'd pass...
Okay, somewhat fair, but the issue here is that you're saying that Bernie would pass no policy. I don't think this is the case. He would not accomplish all his goals, but to say he'd pass literally no policy isn't true, in my opinion. If it were some good policy or no policy, I'd agree. Warren would be better. However, if it's a small amount of good policy or a large, mixed bag of mediocre and bad policy, I choose good policy. I think we maybe disagree on what constitutes "good policy."
McConnell's seat is up for an election in 2020. He's not a forgone conclusion for the next president. His approval numbers in Kentucky are really low, in the teens last I checked. And Sanders...
McConnell's seat is up for an election in 2020. He's not a forgone conclusion for the next president. His approval numbers in Kentucky are really low, in the teens last I checked.
And Sanders could bring the exact people who'd vote him out, to the polls in 2020.
No one compromises during a campaign because it looks bad, but to say that he can't is ignoring the man's 40 year career and simplifying it to him being nothing more than the contrarian in the...
No one compromises during a campaign because it looks bad, but to say that he can't is ignoring the man's 40 year career and simplifying it to him being nothing more than the contrarian in the back of the room.
Are there things he doesn't compromise on? (Yes) Is there a single politician that doesn't have things they won't compromise on? (No) Is the reason you shouldn't compromise on some things while only being a representative/senator because it'll have little to no impact on outcome but large impact on the views of your constituency and will obviously compromise in order to get things done when you're the leader? (Yes) Do I like to pose rhetorical questions?
We're likely past compromise anyway. With the current media machine and the subscribers to it happily buying it, the only way to get anything done is to stuff the executive and legislative branches with one party, let them do all they can with the supermajority they'll have, then let the pendulum swing the other way when the other party takes over next. The president should have writer's cramp from signing everything that his side pushes through and a repetitive stress disorder from doing it when he leaves office.
This is precisely why I think Warren would be the best president the US can produce at this point in time. She is an amazing orator and is very politically skilled. Unfortunately in politics,...
This is precisely why I think Warren would be the best president the US can produce at this point in time. She is an amazing orator and is very politically skilled.
Unfortunately in politics, hardlining is ineffective. Love Bernie, especially how genuine he is. But...
Grawlix put it better but it bears repeating. Compromise only works when the other party is willing. Republicans in office have shown for what, 11? years now that they have absolutely no interest...
Grawlix put it better but it bears repeating.
Compromise only works when the other party is willing.
Republicans in office have shown for what, 11? years now that they have absolutely no interest in meeting in the middle. If it's not what they want, they wont even show up to the table.
True. And in the end, that's not that far from what trump is. Republicans like their guns, trump let the NRA be. Republicans don't like immigrants, trump built a wall to stop them. Republicans are...
Aside from various other comments, I think there's a more fundamental reason why Bernie would be a "bad" president: he will never be the President of the United States, he will be the president of the people who voted for him. There's a subtle but very important difference.
True. And in the end, that's not that far from what trump is. Republicans like their guns, trump let the NRA be. Republicans don't like immigrants, trump built a wall to stop them. Republicans are 'pro-life', trump removed abortion wherever possible. (Some) Republicans like 'small government' and 'big business' and so he left us with as few safety nets for who can't afford it as he can and left big business operate unimpeded. Republicans dont believe in climate change, trump left the Paris agreement. Republicans like the electoral college, trump kept it.
Just because we have 'better intentions' than them, doesnt mean we should just ignore their problems. Automation in factories is still a real problem and we must find a solution to it or factory workers will suffer.
Ah, good catch, this makes sense now. My immediate reaction to the headline was, "Because the corporate media are doing whatever they can to scrub Sanders' presence from voters' minds."
I'm not happy with the Bernie Sanders fetishism - he's had a heart attack, for Jeebus sake! Does no one remember when Hillary Clinton was quote "dying" unquote from a head cold in 2016? Deep...
I'm not happy with the Bernie Sanders fetishism - he's had a heart attack, for Jeebus sake! Does no one remember when Hillary Clinton was quote "dying" unquote from a head cold in 2016? Deep respect for the man's ideals, but stick a fork in because he'll be figuratively, if not literally, slaughtered in a general election.
Setting aside the health concerns, Bernie's the U.S. version of Jeremy Corbyn - a relic of the old radical Left guard who has little interest in coalition-building with moderates and is politically tone-deaf. You can't overturn the effects of generations of U.S. capitalist propaganda in a single candidacy. But you can achieve the goals of a socialist agenda without demanding that the package says "SOCIALISM".
Since U.S. media and the Democratic Party's "debates" are doing a bloody poor job of illuminating the candidates' positions relative to one another, I'll provide the results of Indivisible's recent scorecard poll on their positions: https://scorecard.indivisible.org/
For transparency's sake, Indivisible's questionnaire is here, PDF warning. The questionnaire is meant to elucidate the candidates' positions on an unabashedly "progressive" (economically, largely socialist) agenda, as well as their likelihood of political efficacy.
As expected, Joe Biden's response (or lack thereof) scored abysmally. Cory Booker is the best of the candidates who are likely to continue and don't carry explicit "progressive" credentials.
[Personal note: I can't fathom why so many Sanders supporters won't acknowledge the potential merits of Elizabeth Warren as an alternative.]
I'm abusing the word. It's meant in the anthropological sense, referring to an object arbitrarily imbued with extraordinary powers. In this case, Sanders' followers are acting as if no one else...
I'm abusing the word. It's meant in the anthropological sense, referring to an object arbitrarily imbued with extraordinary powers.
In this case, Sanders' followers are acting as if no one else could possibly occupy the Presidency satisfactorily, or achieve the (increasingly nebulous and grandiose) aims of democratic socialism. The goals have become less important than their attachment to Bernie Sanders, the icon.
It actually kind of amazes me just how deeply embedded Facebook and YouTube apparently are in the lives of older people that they are some of the main vectors of effective political advertising....
It actually kind of amazes me just how deeply embedded Facebook and YouTube apparently are in the lives of older people that they are some of the main vectors of effective political advertising. Traditional media likely still plays a huge role, but there's reason enough to believe Social Media is just as, if not more, effective at reaching out to these people.
Which is probably why they (the social media platforms) have been trying so hard to appeal to them by being family friendly and sometimes quite conservative. These old people are the growth these...
Which is probably why they (the social media platforms) have been trying so hard to appeal to them by being family friendly and sometimes quite conservative. These old people are the growth these platforms crave so much so from a business perspective their actions make perfect sense.
This is my biggest fear. I love Bernie Sanders. I think he would be the best president the U.S. has ever seen, and I think he has a real shot. However, I'm terrified that young people won't vote. That they'll consider it a waste of time or not worth it or whatever. This may be preaching to the choir here, however: Bernie supporters, seriously, vote. In the primaries and the general elections. Tell every Bernie supporter you know to vote as well. Explain that Bernie seriously can not win without the votes of young voters. Bernie has given so much for the American people, the least you can do in return is clear two days to vote.
I think Sanders' views are probably most closely aligned with my own political values of any of the candidates.
However, Sanders' career in Washington shows one thing extremely clearly:
Therefore, irrespective of his values, his voting history, his past political actions, his background, his views and everything else he's ever done as a politician, he cannot, and will not be a president that can accomplish his agenda.
When you've been the guy who for 40 years has been unwilling to compromise on anything, you cannot be an effective leader. You require a huge majority in both houses to get anything done.
Democrats seem unwilling to acknowledge this because it's uncomfortable. If there's one thing the Republicans consistently show, it's that a cynical and calculating party leadership wins you elections
Sanders will be an ineffective and lackluster president. (Biden, Sanders and Trump are all too old to hold the highest office. Younger people will be more effective.)
I disagree.
First, I'm going to put aside the "amendment king" title, since admittedly it's a bit of a selective figure. I'll say that Bernie has been average or above by various measures of "getting things done," but for the sake of argument I won't push that.
With that out of the way, we have to confront the fact that the GOP is explicitly unwilling to compromise, and will obstruct their opposition using every tool at their disposal, even if it flies in the face of precedent or, to the extent that they are able to break it, the law. Compromise is an important thing if we can rely on good faith negotiations, which we clearly can't.
So, if we get a Democrat who can compromise with Republicans, all that ultimately means is that they can get Republicans to agree to do things that they wanted to do anyway. It just greases their wheels, letting them accomplish whatever their goals they want to accomplish, while stalling literally everything else. A Democrat with a progressive platform is, in my opinion, no worse off at affecting positive change, and if anything more so because they have the bully pulpit and are actually trying.
Second, we've seen in the past couple of elections that progressive messaging works, and pivoting to the center does not. Obama won on hope and change, Clinton lost on stay the course. Obviously there's more to it than that, but a boring candidate doesn't get people to show up to the polls. Say what you will about Trump, he's not boring, and he at least promised something, even if it ended up being complete horseshit.
Finally, I can't take seriously the claims that Democrats need to pivot to the center, because they have, for decades, while the Republicans haven't. Republicans barely ever entertain the idea, and almost never once Trump won and brought down-ticket representatives with him. We've been moving right as a country for decades, with disastrous consequences.
Nominating another run-of-the-mill centrist is like we're playing the prisoner's dilemma, but our partner has betrayed us before and swore they'd do it again.
Reposting what I've previously said, but as sad as it is, I don't expect compromise between parties. I anticipate, like under Obama (by no means a particularly left democrat), the president will need to compromise with Southern & Blue Dog democrats to pass policy
Compromise is overrated. Obama tried it for eight years and Republicans continually showed they will not act in good faith. Trump, if anything, has demonstrated that the executive does actually have a good deal of power. I would prefer a stalwart like Bernie who won't be fooled by Lucy's football for eight years. Bernie is the only one who has shown the ability and willingness to build and maintain a grassroots movement. Time has shown again and again that grassroots movements are how we accomplish big change. Worker's rights, women's rights, civil rights, LGBTQ rights, were all won on the street before legislators saw the light.
Even if what you're saying is true, (I'm actually Canadian so I'm not too familiar with what you mean by his history in Washington, though I have closely followed this election and the previous) I'd rather have the president who tries and fails to do the right things than the president who succeeds at compromising and does little anyway or straight up goes against my views like Biden and Trump. I do see what you're saying about Bernie, however, like you even said, he is a man of character who has stood up for what's right for longer than you've probably been alive.
When Bernie fought for the civil rights over half a century ago, would you have said that? What about when he fought for LGBT rights in the 80s (70s)? What about now that he's fighting for marijuana legalization? Medicare for all? Free college? Should we just say, "Oh he'll never accomplish anything!" and give up? I don't think so. I say we fight for what's right.
ETA: I also want to add that even though Sanders is very old, he's the youngest candidate at heart. Much "hipper" than any other candidate in the race.
I'd pick a president that compromises and gets something done over a president who sticks inflexibly to their ideals and does not get any of their agenda effectuated through legislation.
In this case perfect is the enemy of better. If you push for an ideal, don't get a majority and consequently don't get legislation passed, you're left with the status quo: No improvement. There is limited legislative time. Failed votes means not getting something done where something else could have been accomplished.
What matters to real people are improvements in their lives. Often that happens step by step towards political ideals. Change happens incrementally. Improvement by improvement.
Politics is about power. About majority. About writing laws and changing lives. That happens through compromise. No-one gets exactly the bill they want. You need compromise for majority.
Sanders has a history of 40 years in politics where his voting record shows he is inflexible, unwavering and has been one of the congresspeople to get the least influence done in the longest tenure currently in office.
Sanders is a great minority opposition figure, where you just need to win the next election so you in the future can get a majority on your issues. He will be a terrible majority leader and consequently president.
Again, my personal political views probably align most closely with his campaign, but I'm convinced others will be able to enact more of those views into actual change in society, into taxpayer spending.
My concern regarding age is not one of being out of touch, but of physical ability to do the extremely demanding job the presidency is. here younger people will necessarily be better at performing the highest office.
Obligatory rules for rulers link.
Okay, except I don't think anyone is saying Bernie would get nothing done. Obviously, Bernie would get SOME parts of his agenda accomplished. Yes, big things like taxing the rich as high as Bernie wishes to, or free college, or M4A probably won't be achieved in Bernie's term or terms. But to imply he'd not accomplish anything at all in 4-8 years is ludicrous, in my opinion.
Well, to start, I consider Bernie far from perfect. If anything, to me, Bernie is the "better" you describe. I'm a full blown communist, really, so to me, Bernie is a push towards better and every other candidate represents status quo. I think this is where we agree, but disagree on the finer details . I'd rather have a candidate who attempts "better" and fails than a candidate who attempts status quo and succeeds. Additionally, if Bernie can't accomplish much, at the very least he's getting the ball rolling. He's opening the doors for future candidates. He's trying. What more can I ask?
And I agree. However, once again, you're assuming that Bernie would get nothing done. I don't believe that to be the case. It would be impossible for him to achieve nothing good. This is also where "opening the door," comes into play. Again, I think that's all I can ask. I'm asking for drastic change here. All I can do is hope Bernie makes the small improvements and makes way for more in the future.
And once again, I think we agree about the broad but the specific is the difference between us. To reiterate, the options for me are better and status quo. I'd rather work towards better and fail in most ways (but not all) than compromise on status quo and worse and end up with one of the two. Either way, to me, you're left with status quo. Not better.
Maybe in office. But outside of the office, I can't agree. You can't deny that he inspires and encourages people, especially younger people, to fight and take a stand. I probably wouldn't be discussing this right now if Sanders weren't in the race. And that goes for a lot of people my age. You may say this is useless in the short term and you may be right. But in the long term, I think Bernie will have done the most good simply by fighting the fight and encouraging younger voters to think, look into the issues, and push for change.
Well, I do see where you're coming with this. I even fear myself that he may just up and die if elected, leaving us with nothing.
I'd also like to thank you for writing this comment. You haven't changed my mind, but you're sparking discussion and making me think. This is important, and more than I'd ever get on Reddit or most places on the internet where the conversation would probably be "You are dumb and Bernie is bad." And then one of us would get downvoted and our comments hidden.
Completely disagree. We are past the point of Republicans entertaining compromise for progressive legislation. If Republicans retain control of the Senate, they may pass low-key bipartisan bills and budgets, but they will not compromise on a prominent bill that could become the next ACA and ultimately garner widespread popularity across party lines. The days of Republicans at least faking a good faith effort to legislate are long gone, and the chances of a potential swing vote in the Senate like Mitt Romney suddenly growing a spine to support mildly progressive policies are irrespective of which Democrat becomes president.
Is that really the case anymore? I think the last ten years have shown us that the Republican party is absolutely uninterested in multiparty governance. That's not likely to change in the near future, and I don't think we should be preemptively pushing for a president who persistently wastes time and effort reaching across the aisle, only for that extended hand to be slapped down for the thousandth time in a row. We had quite enough of that during the Obama years.
And frankly, I doubt any Democratic president, no matter their intentions, would be able to work with a Republican Senate. However, the map for the Senate elections in 2020 is perfectly winnable, so rather than make a futile attempt at electing someone who can work with Mitch McConnel, I think we'd do better to remove the need.
Again, your argument is that America should have a bad pres. who does little good over a good pres. who does little good. Sure sure, makes sense. Either way, don't you agree that Bernie could be a "gateway" pres. of sorts? Set a precedent, and make way for more centre left and left wing presidents?
As for "does not have the votes," have you not been paying attention? Remember how we got here? Bernie polls really well. Especially among the young crowd. And, IIRC, he has the most donations. The American people do love Bernie and he really does have a shot. As for "political will," I don't even know where to begin with that. Bernie has the MOST will. That's why he's been consistently fighting for the rights of Americans for, again, over half a century. That's why his politics have never wavered. If anything, your argument is that he has TOO MUCH will for his own good.
And as for "Yeah, well no matter how old someone is at heart, what matters is the age of their actual heart," I can't agree. why does it matter how old he's been alive for? He's more progressive and active than most young people. Shouldn't what matters be that he acts young, not how recent he's been alive? If you think Bernie acts too old, I implore you to look at the way he's been campaigning. No other candidate acts as fun and as young as Bernie does. Every other candidate is a corporate puppet in a suit. Bernie is a human being with a will and a way. He's the only candidate that stands for the people and for that I support him.
I think you're a bit strawman-ey and a bit cynical. @dubteedub seems to be indicating he'd prefer a candidate willing to compromise in order to pass policy over a candidate who would not be willing to compromise and therefore would not pass policy.
I could agree with the argument if there are recent examples of meaningful legislation being passed that was bipartisan and both parties compromised rather than steamrolled. I'd agree with others that it's better to elect an president based on ideals where little will be legislated rather than a president that is very moderate and continues the status quo.
As sad as it is, I'm not really referring to compromise between parties. I'm referring specifically to all the Democratic policy that only passed due to the president compromising with Southern & Blue Dog democrats
Okay, somewhat fair, but the issue here is that you're saying that Bernie would pass no policy. I don't think this is the case. He would not accomplish all his goals, but to say he'd pass literally no policy isn't true, in my opinion. If it were some good policy or no policy, I'd agree. Warren would be better. However, if it's a small amount of good policy or a large, mixed bag of mediocre and bad policy, I choose good policy. I think we maybe disagree on what constitutes "good policy."
McConnell's seat is up for an election in 2020. He's not a forgone conclusion for the next president. His approval numbers in Kentucky are really low, in the teens last I checked.
And Sanders could bring the exact people who'd vote him out, to the polls in 2020.
No one compromises during a campaign because it looks bad, but to say that he can't is ignoring the man's 40 year career and simplifying it to him being nothing more than the contrarian in the back of the room.
Are there things he doesn't compromise on? (Yes) Is there a single politician that doesn't have things they won't compromise on? (No) Is the reason you shouldn't compromise on some things while only being a representative/senator because it'll have little to no impact on outcome but large impact on the views of your constituency and will obviously compromise in order to get things done when you're the leader? (Yes) Do I like to pose rhetorical questions?
We're likely past compromise anyway. With the current media machine and the subscribers to it happily buying it, the only way to get anything done is to stuff the executive and legislative branches with one party, let them do all they can with the supermajority they'll have, then let the pendulum swing the other way when the other party takes over next. The president should have writer's cramp from signing everything that his side pushes through and a repetitive stress disorder from doing it when he leaves office.
This is precisely why I think Warren would be the best president the US can produce at this point in time. She is an amazing orator and is very politically skilled.
Unfortunately in politics, hardlining is ineffective. Love Bernie, especially how genuine he is. But...
Grawlix put it better but it bears repeating.
Compromise only works when the other party is willing.
Republicans in office have shown for what, 11? years now that they have absolutely no interest in meeting in the middle. If it's not what they want, they wont even show up to the table.
So at this point cooperation is out the door.
True. And in the end, that's not that far from what trump is. Republicans like their guns, trump let the NRA be. Republicans don't like immigrants, trump built a wall to stop them. Republicans are 'pro-life', trump removed abortion wherever possible. (Some) Republicans like 'small government' and 'big business' and so he left us with as few safety nets for who can't afford it as he can and left big business operate unimpeded. Republicans dont believe in climate change, trump left the Paris agreement. Republicans like the electoral college, trump kept it.
Just because we have 'better intentions' than them, doesnt mean we should just ignore their problems. Automation in factories is still a real problem and we must find a solution to it or factory workers will suffer.
This article is over 6 months old. How much does it still apply?
Ah, good catch, this makes sense now. My immediate reaction to the headline was, "Because the corporate media are doing whatever they can to scrub Sanders' presence from voters' minds."
By the polls at least, just as much as when it was published.
I'm not happy with the Bernie Sanders fetishism - he's had a heart attack, for Jeebus sake! Does no one remember when Hillary Clinton was quote "dying" unquote from a head cold in 2016? Deep respect for the man's ideals, but stick a fork in because he'll be figuratively, if not literally, slaughtered in a general election.
Setting aside the health concerns, Bernie's the U.S. version of Jeremy Corbyn - a relic of the old radical Left guard who has little interest in coalition-building with moderates and is politically tone-deaf. You can't overturn the effects of generations of U.S. capitalist propaganda in a single candidacy. But you can achieve the goals of a socialist agenda without demanding that the package says "SOCIALISM".
Since U.S. media and the Democratic Party's "debates" are doing a bloody poor job of illuminating the candidates' positions relative to one another, I'll provide the results of Indivisible's recent scorecard poll on their positions: https://scorecard.indivisible.org/
This is a TL;DR.
For transparency's sake, Indivisible's questionnaire is here, PDF warning. The questionnaire is meant to elucidate the candidates' positions on an unabashedly "progressive" (economically, largely socialist) agenda, as well as their likelihood of political efficacy.
As expected, Joe Biden's response (or lack thereof) scored abysmally. Cory Booker is the best of the candidates who are likely to continue and don't carry explicit "progressive" credentials.
[Personal note: I can't fathom why so many Sanders supporters won't acknowledge the potential merits of Elizabeth Warren as an alternative.]
Why call it fetishism?
I'm abusing the word. It's meant in the anthropological sense, referring to an object arbitrarily imbued with extraordinary powers.
In this case, Sanders' followers are acting as if no one else could possibly occupy the Presidency satisfactorily, or achieve the (increasingly nebulous and grandiose) aims of democratic socialism. The goals have become less important than their attachment to Bernie Sanders, the icon.
See also: Joe Biden's spending a lot of money on Facebook; to talk about himself to older voters.
It actually kind of amazes me just how deeply embedded Facebook and YouTube apparently are in the lives of older people that they are some of the main vectors of effective political advertising. Traditional media likely still plays a huge role, but there's reason enough to believe Social Media is just as, if not more, effective at reaching out to these people.
Which is probably why they (the social media platforms) have been trying so hard to appeal to them by being family friendly and sometimes quite conservative. These old people are the growth these platforms crave so much so from a business perspective their actions make perfect sense.