Jump to content
laripu

If Bernie is the nominee .....

Recommended Posts

Ha ha ha. Good one. Dream ticket for us. Nightmare for Cons. Literally and figuratively. I try not to let myself think such things too often.

 

Sanders and Warren reflect shared views. Warren would make a great spokesperson and has a wonderful way with words. But judging by things she's said in the past, Warren would probably never be satisfied with a position where there is so little chance to get things done.

 

It seems there's not much Warren wouldn't be very good at, should she be so inclined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan Schakowsky would be a great choice. She's got a very progressive voting record, and though she is currently pro-Hillary, she's worked well with Sanders in the past and has co-sponsored bills with him before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that will not work and will bring out the republicans even more. You have to consider that America is not all completely aligned to the left and has a large portion of people on the right. Giving them reason to get off the couch and load up the church buses would be a big mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that will not work and will bring out the republicans even more. You have to consider that America is not all completely aligned to the left and has a large portion of people on the right. Giving them reason to get off the couch and load up the church buses would be a big mistake.

 

And maybe having a true progressive ticket for once will bring out all the democrats and progressives. Yes, there are people who are not on the left. However, our politics have been pushed so far to the right that a lot of people think the center is left. It's *time* for progressives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan Schakowsky would be a great choice. She's got a very progressive voting record, and though she is currently pro-Hillary, she's worked well with cSanders in the past and has co-sponsored bills with him before.

 

Seems to me Schakowsky would make an effective running mate and a good vice president. She has an excellent voting record in the House.

 

 

No, that will not work and will bring out the republicans even more. You have to consider that America is not all completely aligned to the left and has a large portion of people on the right. Giving them reason to get off the couch and load up the church buses would be a big mistake.

 

Translation:--

It's unwise to taunt Cons with authentic Liberal candidates. Once they grow so enraged as to "to get off the couch and load up the church buses" ... Game over! It's safer to give them their way.

 

 

 

And maybe having a true progressive ticket for once will bring out all the democrats and progressives. Yes, there are people who are not on the left. However, our politics have been pushed so far to the right that a lot of people think the center is left. It's *time* for progressives.

 

Nicely said. For large numbers of people exposed to 35 years of right wing propaganda, middle right is now viewed as centrist. Modest left is seen as far left. And at the far left, doubtless, lurk dangerous Communists.

 

Fortunately these attitudes are changing and the left is starting to make a comeback, especially with younger voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that Bernie is doing so well with independents. The independents are the ones that elect a president. So I think a progressive team would do very well in the election. In national polls Bernie would beat all Republicans by a greater margin than Clinton. That is because independents will come out for Bernie, but not Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In national polls Bernie would beat all Republicans by a greater margin than Clinton. That is because independents will come out for Bernie, but not Clinton.

 

Bernie's electability advantage over Clinton doesn't seem important to most Democratic party bigwigs. Maybe they're more comfortable with the candidate that won't stop the gravy train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bernie's electability advantage over Clinton doesn't seem important to most Democratic party bigwigs. Maybe they're more comfortable with the candidate that won't stop the gravy train.

 

 

Perhaps most Democratic party bigwigs (and everyday Democrats) are more comfortable with a candidate who is a long-term party stalwart, as opposed to a candidate who only "joined" the party—while seemingly holding his nose—in order to run for president on their ticket?

 

Not to mention HRC is winning in the vote and delegate counts.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The party needs fresh ideas and new blood. It has become too much like the Republicans. The preference for Hillary among Democratic heavyweights reflects their corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The party needs fresh ideas and new blood. It has become too much like the Republicans. The preference for Hillary among Democratic heavyweights reflects their corruption.

 

 

Because one can't support Hillary Clinton without being corrupt?

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because one can't support Hillary Clinton without being corrupt?

Counterexample: I support Hillary Clinton, and I'm not only not corrupt, I may be the most honest person you'll ever meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democratic party heavyweights have become nearly as corrupt as their Republican counterparts. Almost all take money from big interests as does Hillary Clinton. By contrast there are, without doubt, plenty of ordinary people supporting Hillary who are honest and uncorrupted.

 

The Democratic Party cannot be allowed to go on as an economic ally of the Republicans. Since Jimmy Carter, we've had five presidents, over a time span of 36 years, including two Democrats. And during that time the Nation has been creeping toward Plutocracy. The 16 years total that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were in office Should have been periods when Republican economic policy was reversed. That never happened. Today, the middle class is vanishing and Plutocracy is ascendant.

 

Democrats have got to send a message to their leadership which cannot be ignored. Now, in 2016 that message comes in the form of support for Bernie. It is no surprise that highly placed Democrats see Bernie as a threat to business as usual. We simply cannot afford another Democratic president who supports Republican economic policy.

 

Social liberalism is little more than symbolic when it is undermined by economic policies that, on the whole, do real damage to peoples ability to provide for themselves and their loved ones. If support of Bernie leads to a Republican president in 2017, as repugnant as that is, it might be worth it to shake up the Democratic party enough to return to the priorities it had before the Reagan administration.

 

The Democratic party needs to be put on notice that the time has come to put forth candidates who will serve the ordinary 90% of Americans and not just high income earners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bernie is the nominee the democratic party in general will move towards the left. Plus he whoops any GOP candidate in polls which is a upside and I believe that Elizabeth Warren would be the best VP candidate because her and Bernie have very similar voting records which will make them a good duo in a general election. I just think Bernie is going to have a hard time taking down the biggest enemy the DNC with there loyalty to Hillary will be hard for Bernie to get the same level of loyalty from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democratic party heavyweights have become nearly as corrupt as their Republican counterparts. Almost all take money from big interests as does Hillary Clinton. By contrast there are, without doubt, plenty of ordinary people supporting Hillary who are honest and uncorrupted.

 

The Democratic Party cannot be allowed to go on as an economic ally of the Republicans. Since Jimmy Carter, we've had five presidents, over a time span of 36 years, including two Democrats. And during that time the Nation has been creeping toward Plutocracy. The 16 years total that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were in office Should have been periods when Republican economic policy was reversed. That never happened. Today, the middle class is vanishing and Plutocracy is ascendant.

 

Democrats have got to send a message to their leadership which cannot be ignored. Now, in 2016 that message comes in the form of support for Bernie. It is no surprise that highly placed Democrats see Bernie as a threat to business as usual. We simply cannot afford another Democratic president who supports Republican economic policy.

 

Social liberalism is little more than symbolic when it is undermined by economic policies that, on the whole, do real damage to peoples ability to provide for themselves and their loved ones. If support of Bernie leads to a Republican president in 2017, as repugnant as that is, it might be worth it to shake up the Democratic party enough to return to the priorities it had before the Reagan administration.

 

The Democratic party needs to be put on notice that the time has come to put forth candidates who will serve the ordinary 90% of Americans and not just high incomes

​It's not just the party leaders or elites a lot of rank and file liberals and progressives do not support Sanders and unless he can win in places like New York, New Jersey, California, and Pennsylvania convincing the Super Delegates to back him Sanders will lose. And it won't necessarily be because these liberals lack conviction. Far too many liberals no longer believe it is possible or desirable to challenge large corporations or economic inequality. Liberals since the rise of Reagan and Conservatism in the 1980s have lost confidence in their beliefs and policies in relation to active government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​It's not just the party leaders or elites a lot of rank and file liberals and progressives do not support Sanders and unless he can win in places like New York, New Jersey, California, and Pennsylvania convincing the Super Delegates to back him Sanders will lose. And it won't necessarily be because these liberals lack conviction. Far too many liberals no longer believe it is possible or desirable to challenge large corporations or economic inequality. Liberals since the rise of Reagan and Conservatism in the 1980s have lost confidence in their beliefs and policies in relation to active government.

Far too many liberals no longer believe it is possible or desirable to challenge large corporations or economic inequality.

 

 

 

 

What!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far too many liberals no longer believe it is possible or desirable to challenge large corporations or economic inequality.

 

 

 

 

What ?

 

Think about it. Wage Stagnation and decline not to mention the time passed since the last Minimum wage increase along with mergers in financial services and mass media. NAFTA and TPP have also been ratified by Congress. While some liberal thinkers, writers, and activists have spoken out voters who claim to be liberal and progressive have not held the Democratic Party accountable. What if President Obama had been held been challenged ? Moreover liberals who know that corporate power and inequality are serious problems like Economist Paul Krugman, Columnist Johnathan Chait, Writer Katha Pollitt ( The Nation ) and Princeton academic Paul Starr (cofounder of The American Prospect ) have vigorously criticized Bernie Sanders while supporting Hillary Clinton. They all seem to imply that Sanders is wrong to even challenge Clinton for the nomination.

 

​I more than understand the practical and procedural nature of liberalism and its preference for incremental change. I also know that liberals change based on circumstance, and maybe all this gets at Hillary Clinton's emphasis on " progressivism that gets things done. " At some point however we have to recognize how a demoralized liberalism has settled for defending past achievements like Social Security and Medicare while offering more modest measures like the Affordable Care Act recently rather than finding the confidence to go further and fight for Single Payer or breaking up the big banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time supporting Hillary because I don't believe she is fiscally liberal. Perhaps she is socially liberal, but from what I see, Hillary supports Reagan's trickle down. I don't believe Hillary will do anything about income inequality. I don't believe Hillary will "negotiate" in good faith with the GOP. Just like Obama, she will give them all she can as an opening bid. After that they will trade to give the GOP everything they want fiscally.

 

If Hillary doesn't believe this, then she should say so, and describe how she would restore the middle class. She needs to support Social Security, not diverting some of the money to help the poorest of the poor; to help those most in need. She needs to support education, not talk about how its impossible to allow education in a nation that is being put on austerity measures and will not invest in its own future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far too many liberals no longer believe it is possible or desirable to challenge large corporations or economic inequality.

 

 

 

 

What!

Far too many liberals have also shifted to the right and now are moderates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish they would stop comparing the delegate totals between Bernie and Hillary, all the time including super delegates with Hillary's totals. Look, I don't really respect a lot of the Democrats in the Congress much either.

The real count is:

 

Hillary Bernie

1,289 1,038

 

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's 24% more for Hilary, not counting super-delegates.

 

Super-delegates are a stability mechanism. Democrats who think we need a huge change want to ignore them for Bernie. Republicans who want a huge change go for Trump.

 

In the mean time, Rafael Cruz wants to control how you masturbate. Don't believe me? Look here:

 

'There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship,' Cruz wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far too many liberals have also shifted to the right and now are moderates.

Then they aren't liberals anymore.

I just wish they would stop comparing the delegate totals between Bernie and Hillary, all the time including super delegates with Hillary's totals. Look, I don't really respect a lot of the Democrats in the Congress much either.

The real count is:

 

Hillary Bernie

1,289 1,038

 

 

Peace!

The New York Times has delegate count as being a lot closer:

 

220

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html

 

Democratic Delegates

 

2,383 to win nomination

 

Hillary Clinton

 

1,307

 

Bernie Sanders

 

1,087

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...