And he never said that his platform includes return to Ike level taxes, only that there is nothing wrong with those levels.

How can he win without Big PAC money? One person one vote. Dollars don't vote.

A billion dollars garners a shit load of votes. To not understand that is........

ad space, attack ads, signs, staff workers.

But dollars do not vote. People do. One person one vote.

going to ensure that women get equal pay for equal work?

ensure the overturning of Citizens United?

ensure passage of the Dream Act?

They are equally as admirable, however, the Senate and House are both firmly in GOP hands.

How the hell is she going to get anything done either?

and by support, I means votes, on each of these topics. We're 80% of the way there ... not so much with the topics raised by the post you responded to

I look forward to absence of minimum wage, most jobs being sent overseas, and having no hope.

It will be great!

So, will we have people posting that Sanders is a POS used car salesman when he can't make those things happen, and he has to govern pragmatically?

going to be in the hands of the Rs. And the Senate could be also. Neither will get anymore done than President Obama has if we the people do not stand up and fight.

Also since it is clear that I am a Bernie supporter I will say that when I hear him talking to us I do not hear him promising HE can get those things done. I hear him talking about what needs to be done to help the people on the bottom. He is talking about what it will take to give us a level playing field. When the media or others insist he is promising to do things that are not to their liking then it is lie. Today NO president can get things done by themselves.

But given the choice between someone who will make the attempt and someone who won't, at least in the primary season I'd rather support the one who will make the attempt.

Of course in the general election I'll vote for whoever gets the Democratic nominee.

Bryant

He has already moved the conversation.

but I'm voting for him because that's the direction he's headed -that's his goal. He will work toward those goals to the best of his ability. I like those goals.

... he uses the bully pulpit to campaign for a more progressive Congress in 2018.

Had Obama done this instead of trying to appease the damned Republicans we wouldn't be where we are today.

Exactly!

He tried way too hard to appease people that never supported him and whose goals were to make him a one term president. He put tons of people into his cabinet and White House that thwarted him at every step. (Read "Confidence Men" for a start)

And Rahm-fricking-Emmanuel as COS??!! I recall punching a wall and shouting in rage when I heard he had done that.

Bernie puts policy front and center and keeps it there. I think he will make a great president because of this.

How is he going to give us free ice cream with a Republican congress?

special flavor and donated all the profits...said so on the carton...to some worthy cause. And Please Don't Ask me For a Link. All I did was buy it and read the carton listen to the news and enjoy an entire pint...all at once.

By doing just what he is. He will have over a year to talk about these issues with a much broader audience than in the past. He will make them more comfortable topics to the American electorate and politicians. The people will understand they are real issues that deserve discussion. That openness to discuss with make it easier for congress to take these issues up in the decades to come. He will stump all over the country discussing economic issues all while building up support. When he goes back to the senate, he will be more powerful. He will get the ball rolling and others will take it up after he retires.

I will go back to human rights. LGBTQ topics were not commonly discussed in fair terms decades ago in politics. So many politicians of today will openly talk about many of the issues surrounding the oppression of others. This has taken place by the relentless grassroots campaign of supporters. Something Sanders currently has with respect to economic issues. These grassroots movements feed up to politicians. The conversation then becomes acceptable and change begins to happen.

And if he does, he won't win the GE.
And if he does, none of his agenda will get through the Republican congress.

Then why try to do anything at all?

I am sorry for being a democrat. I am sorry for basing my intentions, my preferred policies, my volunteer work, my support, and ultimately my vote on my highest aspirations. I am sorry for not surrendering all of that and basing my expectations on whatever crumbs the most insane republican party in US history tosses at me.

Seriously man, how are you helping? Who are you helping?

I think idealistically and vote pragmatically.

Your posting doesn't do progressivism, your party, or even your candidate much good.

Do you think walking into congress with nothing more than what they demand is a good negotiating tactic?

And, no, I don't think walking into congress with nothing more than they demand is a good negotiating tactic.

But your reasoning is essentially about what you think the republicans will pass. (that is once I ignore the 'he can't win') Don't you think walking in with the strongest position will actually help move towards a compromise more representative of progressive ideas? Progressive ideas that the majority of Americans actually share I should mention?

The first two were that he can't win the primary, and if he does, he can't win the GE. I get that you disagree with those, but they are still part of my reasoning.

To spell it out: regardless of whether it's Bernie or Hillary or anyone else, the limiting factor of what happens in congress is how much POTUS can pull the GOP to the left. Both of them share progressive ideals, and the question then becomes who is more effective at pulling.

I don't see offhand that one of them would be obviously better than the other. Sure, Bernie will start further left, but since congress isn't going to go anywhere near where he is, that doesn't make much difference. On the other hand, there's the argument that Hillary is more experienced in tactical political battles, has a better PR team, etc. But who knows.

So to me, although I agree with Bernie on policy more than Hillary, by far the most important thing is actually winning the presidency, and not having a Republican takeover, because that will probably mean the GOP controlling the presidency and both chambers. Any other issue is a distant second for me.

If the GOP wins, we will have lost the Supreme Court for a generation. Obamacare will probably be neutered or even destroyed. Social Security and medicare could easily end up privatized. Union rights will suffer, as will voting rights. Women's access to abortion and contraception will be threatened. Financial regulations that Obama put in place will be weakened, setting the stage for another collapse. Do I need to go on?

That Bernie actually has a better chance in the general election than Hillary does. But the reason I support him is because I support his policy positions. I also think that the American people are starving for policy over platitudes and that Bernie's voice is uncommon in this regard.

Hillary does not excite me as a candidate, comes with a fair amount of baggage, comes off as being a little inauthentic, is much weaker on policy, and I am not at all confident that she will actually bring the banks and Wall Street in line.

I will vote for her if she is the candidate of course. I just think she is actually a lot weaker of a candidate once you get past her warchest and her name recognition.

Bernie does have the "socialist" thing sticking to him. Personally though, I think the Republicans of today would accuse Richard Nixon of being a dirty socialist.

I totally understand that if you start with that assumption, and I start with the opposite one, we will reach different conclusions. If I thought Bernie had a better or even equal chance in the GE, then I would support him. But can't see it. And winning the GE is too important to me to take the risk.

The other thing I'd add is that, regardless of who anyone supports in the primary, the incessant attacks on other candidates (primarily Hillary) are purely counterproductive. The odds heavily favor her to be the nominee, and even if you don't play the odds, you still have to agree that it's a pretty distinct possibility. And if she does become the nominee, then all attacks on her do is make the GOP more likely to win.

But in the last two weeks I have witnessed some very aggressive negative behavoir towards supporters of Sanders and of his candidacy as well.

Last weeks Race-baiting thing which was blended with some odd either/or fallacy about economic justice being totally seperate from social justice was some of the worst of the trolling that occured. Granted, there was a lot of backlash to that which probably made it persist longer. But there were two or three people that were definitely supporting Hillary that did all they could to keep it alive.

There have also been people on Sanders side that have gotten a bit angry at times and maybe overly suspicious. I have personally tried to mitigate this and attempted to keep people positive. Some of us have even started emailing each other to pull back when we are dealing with someone that is obviously trolling or someone that is being obstinate.

Yes, there are people that are not happy with Hillary as a candidate and that is based primarily on who she is taking money from and how much they trust her. It is a hell of a lot easier to rally the base and turn people out for elections if the candidate is more populist and in the generals the ability to distinguish yourself from your opposition is absolutely crucial. The division of wealth is an absolutely huge issue this election (thank you Occupy Wall Street!) and I think we endanger our ability to do something about that issue by choosing someone too chummy with them and I know that we compromise our ability to use it in a campaign if a candidate has been getting a lot of money from them.

I understand your concerns with regards to this campaign and how important this is but I honestly think Bernie Sanders has the best shot of not just winning this election but of bringing people back to the democratic party and rallying the working poor to go to vote and thereby grabbing back some seats too.

As to winning the primary that is more about people like you and I.

Look, for example, at what happens when someone posts something good about Hillary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026765966
Response #6: "Dead Broke to US Senator and Wall St goddess."

If you look at any other thread supporting Hillary, you will find exactly the same thing, people piling on to attack. Yesterday (I think) someone made an OP about her lauch event, held on a beautiful green on Roosevelt Island, and sure enough, someone chimed in to say "points to Wall Street". Not to mention the hundreds of OPs about emails, paid speeches, contributors to the foundation, etc. I could go on for pages of this stuff. Every other post describes her as a third-way sellout, heck, there's even a widely popular persona on DU dedicated entirely to making fun of supposed "third-wayers". Now, imagine if there were another persona name "crazy old communist" who regularly and exaggeratedly mocked Bernie Sanders and his supporters. And that this went on not just for a few weeks during the campaign, but for years and years. No, as far as "aggressive negative behavior" the clear champion, at least on DU, is the Bernie crowd.

Interesting thing about the race "controversy." The criticism here was that Bernie didn't address race forcefully enough in his opening speech and campaign generally. If you look at what people say in the African Americans group, you will see some very different opinions than what is posted in GD. Further on in your post you say that there are people who are not happy with Hillary because of trust/money/etc. Fair or unfair, they have the right to believe that. But when there are other people who are not happy with Bernie because they don't think he pays enough attention to social issues such as black people being murdered by police across the country, somehow this is "race-baiting"?

It sort of feels that some Bernie supporters just can't possibly imagine that someone legitimately likes another candidate better. The fact that people get shouted down when they point out that Bernie doesn't address race in a way satisfactorily to them (something that has come up not just on DU, but on Vox, Chris Hayes, Salon, and other places), this is absurd.

So the guy with the lifelong committment to equal rights for everyone and has a record for standing up for African Americans, gay rights, women, and just about everyone else should be subject to an "optics" argument on a message board. And somehow it is fair to make a largely manufactured argument about "optics" over policy because Clinton happens to be a bit weaker on actual policy.

Bernie Samders stood up mere days after Ferguson and spoke out agains what had occured and tried to pass legislation to address part of this. Hillary waited another ten days after Bernie stood up. How is that for optics?

And another question, who are you to tell people that Bernie Sanders addresses their concerns? How about letting them make up their own mind. You seem to think that just because you like him, then everyone else has to also, and if they don't then they are trolls.

Here's the thing, I happen to think that Hillary is a strong progressive, as evidence by her record. However, when other people say things like "she's got too many ties to Wall Street" or whatever, fair enough, that's their opinion. And I can see where they are coming from. Now, is it necessary to intrude on every thread where something good is said about Hillary in order to bash her about this? No. Is it necessary to have 10 OPs a day on the same emails and speeches and other such nonsense? No.

Remember, the Bernie post on race that started the firestorm, the criticism was that Bernie's speech was "not good enough" on race issues. That's the extent of it. If someone on DU called Hillary "not good enough", that might be one of the nicest things said about here for a week.

Your on rehash mode and I am done.

I'm not making this up, by the way, click on the group and read some of the posts there.

Especially your last paragraph.

Nothing that any Democrat with a shred of self-respect would support.

Do you suggest that we support someone instead that the Republicans agree with?

upon what a Republican congress thinks.

a choice of more than two corporate candidates, it doesn't matter, their opinions don't matter at all.

See, this is why Bernie is gaining support the more people get to know about him.

Because they still believe that we don't live under a system where Corporations choose our candidates then pay to fund their campaigns so the people have no say.

The people are waking up to the corrupting influence of money on our electoral system. I have to admit that I was not fully aware of that eight years ago.

Now that I am, to me, this is one of the most important issues in this race, getting the money out of our political system.

is going to happen.

I don't speak for anyone except for me. Everyone's votes and opinions matter equally.

As far as getting money out of the political system, obviously the best choice there is Hillary, because she is much better positioned to defeat the GOP. Both Bernie and Hillary support overturning Citizens United, but the only real hope on that front is in the Supreme Court, which means if the GOP wins, we're stuck with Citizens United for a generation.

It has to do with the argument. So it's nice that he's running now, but some of his arguments will get picked up for 2020 and beyond.

You seem to know exactly how things are going to go in the future, or you think you do. Has your own life turned out exactly as you've proclaimed it would?

It's pretty simple:

Establish set rates for hospital services. In one state this was done for something like close to 40 years. This means all patients would pay the same rate for services at hospitals (all across the country).

This would enable us/him to set a global budget.

This would enable alternative approaches to payment.

Overall you get better outcomes for patients at lower costs.

Just goes away?

It isn't an either/or situation. We demand both and we seek to fund it with proper taxation.

And we need to include trade schools too! It needs to benefit working class kids and kids who grew up in poverty (both urban and rural - think Mississippi) who didn't receive the basics as 5 year olds that their suburban and posh peers received by virtue of where they lived. They aren't going to be prepared in September 2017 (assuming this happens by then) to attend Princeton.

We need to provide them pathways to prosperity too - here's a course offering -

https://www.kaplancleantech.com/courses/solar

That's 2K to 3K a poor inner city kid can only get his hands on if he does something illegal. Let's give him a shot at making a good living too! He was neglected by this country and never received intense study preparation. He was looked at as less than for 40/50 years - I won't go along with any plan that looks at him as 'less than' now when the 'less than' of days past was done with malicious intent.

I want him living in between that college educated accountant and that physical therapist in suburban America - with his children having access to the same public schools and services as the college grads - in ten/fifteen years.

It's what's fair.

healthcare programs that are already in place. Then work on getting those who are not in those programs eligible. That is something I think he can do from within the government structure.


As to free education - it is as much in the interest of the corporations to have highly qualified workers as it is anyone else. Years ago businesses used to actually pay for an employee to get further education. So I do not see the rich being so against this idea.

Especially since workers are already competing against low income workers and free education in the global market. If American based (as opposed to multinational corporations) want to continue to compete then they are going to need educated workers and innovators.

For the consolidation - and it works. Then look at the arc/progress of Dean(Howard) to Shumlin in Vermont! It's been done - and I don't want to stop progress in states that flipped the bird to Washington. We need to give them wide berth to continue down the right path!

the answer is he isn't. He never says he is going to do any of those things. He says we are going to do those things. He says we need to exert our will on Congress and make corporations start paying attention to ethical practices including paying their fair share of taxes, but especially paying their employees a living wage.

He will win the election by getting the most electoral votes and wining the popular vote, this is called a mandate.

Once he decides to make that effort, that is the first step toward taking action ...

The other candidates haven't bothered to do anything else about it ... At least Bernie has the idea ...

You would do well to decide to support the idea as well ... Otherwise, you are not considering the impact that current policies have on poor families ...

I love that someone is putting their foot down and saying 'this will not stand!'

I am guessing you don't have Bernie's back on this ... What a shame ...

It's about real democracy. Bernie will be leading the charge, but it will be us, the soldiers to show up in the streets. With Millions of us in the streets and presidential support, Congress will have to listen to the people.

Latinos for Bernie Sanders!!!

Is it your view these things cannot be had? Ever? Disturbing obedience to the status quo.

Ask rather what you are willing to help get done. Vote accordingly.

and gets people aroused enough to elect senators and congressmen with the same goals, it's possible.

Lots of things have been done because of public opinion - the decline of smoking, saving energy because of climate changes, affordable health care (still needs some work), equal rights for LGBT - including marriage, women running for office and winning, stiff laws against drunk drivers, marijuana becoming legal, and the list goes on.

Passion was and required more than a PAC to stir people into voting for things good for them that they thought was not possible.
Other countries have the things you say Bernie can't bring about and they are very satisfied with their governments.

he'll shake both parties to the core, IMO. He may not have the personality, charisma and youth of Obama, but he has the inner depth and maturity and political record that Obama didn't have.

Nor do I mean that as a criticism...just a comparison. Because that's how I see Obama now. He didn't start out so great, but he learned and matured and will likely go down as one of our greatest Presidents.

Let me pose some potentials...purely from an academic understanding:

Free college education: That was a fact of life before Reagan in California. I would not have a degree today if not for that. All I had to do was teach school, and each year a portion of my last 2 years loans were forgiven. Community College was free. If he could somehow attach this to the Infrastructure Works Program/VA bills/1st time student programs, reinstate the Pell Grants it would perhaps work. I'm not a policy person. It will piss the banks off royally, however, what with their fat profits from poor students.

Speaking of Banks ... Break up the Big Banks: Glass Steagal reinstated...and his lack of fear of the bullying because he is not beholden to one of them. That's why Jamie Dimon (JP Morgan Chase) is already crying Foul...he knows Bernie means it and he's afraid Hillary might actually mean what she just changed her mind to say...Break 'em up.

Increase taxes (i don't think to Ike's time) but many of the .01% have already said it would not matter if their taxes were raised. Raise the limit on SS taxes 5 years to shore up/not gut/that system. Also, he'll go after the "hidden funds" via the IRS or any other way possible. There are way more than enough tax dodgers...some of whom might get a conscience along the way with the possibility of getting outed, if nothing else. It's not that this can't be done, it's that no one has had the courage to even seriously try...make it public...etc.

Single Pay health care: Saves the economy money...indeed it does. As he said, we have the worst health care at the highest cost. We already have the format...Medicare...in 4-8 years, it's doable. This will piss off the insurance people.

No PACs, well, I think it has yet to be seen what can be done without selling the middle class out. Will there be some major donors come to the table? I think so.

JMO, but it Can Be Done. It will take Faith, Works and Commitment on the part of a lot of people. People who have may not have been "in the system" before...like Obama's group. That's how revolutions are started...peaceful and powerful...working within the system we already have.

(Yahoo News had him at the top of the page and a side video of his Couric Interview. That's getting a bit mainstream)

He proved yesterday with his cloture vote how completely full of shit he is.

Duh.