So you're coming from what can be most generously described as a centrist viewpoint.

... to the center with my political views than you probably are.

... just dreaming about them.

but not enough to vote for them. Have a lovely day.

The rest of us can see it just fine..

We must stay the course if we expect to reach the bottom. For over 30 years, we have pursued a strategy that loses us seats in Congress, governors, state legislators, county commissioners, city council members, and every other office at every other level. We can't give up now. The bottom is in sight. We must continue to elect crafty politicians who take money from corporate interests and sell us out for campaign money. If we expect to become a completely irrelevant party, we cannot be diddling around with progressive ideas and such.

eventually they'll perish and we won't have to worry about them anymore.

a winning strategy if i ever heard one.

I'll stick with the idealists over the "pragmatic centrists" that have helped bring us to the brink of ecological and financial disaster, thank you.

We've been lurching right for 40 years.

Time to go back to the left and fight.

I will be voting for Bernie's ideas, as opposed to Hillary's ideas on war and fracking and the TPP. I don't consider it a plus that she might be able to get those things done with the help of a GOP that of course will cooperate on things they want in the first place.

The GOP and Hillary are fine with the TPP and fracking and war. Bernie is not.
Being told that Hillary is more likely to get GOP cooperation, when compromise and cooperation with the GOP seems to be along the lines of cutting the leg off a baby, instead of cutting it in half is declared a great victory (with plans to come back for that other leg next year) is certainly not a reason for me to support Hillary. The Third Way and the GOP are a little too close for my comfort, and I will be voting accordingly.

I don't see the need to declare that in an OP, though! And while I value the opinions of many DUers, it would never occur to me to choose a candidate to support, and/or change my support, due to another DUer's opinion.

.... getting back to your original post, how on earth will Bernie be able to get any of his proposals passed. If he can't get anything done he would be totally ineffective and would not be able to forward any of the ideas you support.

As I said, Americans are sick and tired of a government which can't govern. That situation would only intensify into a flash fire during a Sanders Presidency. Like it or not, the President is always responsible for the direction of the country which would reflect badly on Bernie's cherished positions. If you want the "revolution" to ultimately succeed, don't try to push a candidate like Sanders on the American public before they are ready of him.

things I am in favor of. Like war, fracking, TPP.

It is like you are saying it is okay to do bad things, rather than do nothing.

Their constituents wouldn't stand for it. They want to be reelected.

the GOP agree with is a better choice? We are done here -

Bless your defeatist little heart.

Also, it is possible to take our party back where it once was, and where it still should be. Clinton has political skills, and he is charming, but I think he is just what people are tired of.

People long for a politician who has strong beliefs and sticks to them. That is how Reagan was...I hated him and his ideas, but the prick was firm in his beliefs and he communicated that.

So Bernie isn't a movie star, and he doesn't have Bill's superficial charm, but he does have something more...courage of his convictions, and no fear of a fight.

Just don't think it will happen and too much is at stake for another McGovern/Dukakis type result.

1) Ideas do matter, That is where action starts.......A failure to stand for clear ideas has hurt the Democratic Party over the years. The muddling and waffling and walking back by the "centrists" makes many people wonder what the hell being a Democrat actually means anymore.

2)I suggest you tread about Sanders experiences as Mayor of Burlington,. He was dismissed in the same way when he ran and only won by a fluke.

But once in office he proved that he is a workhorse, and did know how to get things done. Siome peope rolled thir eyes at his ideology, but they acknowledged that he did know how to actually "get things done" and even Republicans came to admire his executive abilities. He got re-elected several times.

Yes President is a different scale. But it requires the same basic abilities and skills.

Last edited Sun Jan 17, 2016, 06:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillary Clointon was a Senator. Ted Cruzer is a Senator. Gosh they must be just the same.

Two political parties that agree on very little will agree that there shouldn't be any other parties.

(all the while a Hillary supporter) in my ideology and while I believe you are a bit too much of a realist... I agree and understand what you are saying... too bad we cannot have an honest discussion on this Democratic Discussion board...

Independent who changed his own identity for personal gain. Sorry, I just don't respect that.

Please get off your high horse.

a set of core beliefs that stand for something.

We as a party have drifted far from the ideals and policies of FDR and as a consequence we have lost the support of the people. The DLC/new way wing of the party have wrecked us. No more corporate Dems,
no more warmongers.

Maybe you are confusing the Democratic Party with the Socialist Party of America or Socialist Labor Party of America.

I've studied FDR. His beliefs were not as far to the left as Bernie's. The official Democratic platforms over the years never included some of Bernie's most socialistic ideas; that was never practical.

Allow Government to Negotiate Drug Prices (79%)
Give Students the Same Low Interest Rates as Big Banks (78%)
Universal Pre-Kindergarten (77%)
Fair Trade that Protect Workers, the Environment, and Jobs (75%)
End Tax Loopholes for Corporations that Ship Jobs Overseas (74%)
End Gerrymandering (73%)
Let Homeowners Pay Down Mortgage With 401k (72%)
Debt-Free College at All Public Universities (Message A) (71%)
Infrastructure Jobs Program — $400 Billion / Year (71%)
Require NSA to Get Warrants (71%)
Disclose Corporate Spending on Politics/Lobbying (71%)
Medicare Buy-In for All (71%)
Close Offshore Corporate Tax Loopholes (70%)
Green New Deal — Millions Of Clean-Energy Jobs (70%)
Full Employment Act (70%)
Expand Social Security Benefits (70%)

I guess we are all Socialists now.

Those are the result of internet polls on a socialist website. Did you really expect people voting on that site to say that socialist ideas are terrible?

I am all for discussing the race in a credible manner - but you are shoveling bullshit.

PCI first solicited ideas online through an open submission process (more than 2,600 specific proposals were submitted) and then let people vote on them (more than a million votes were cast). This bottom-up process was then tested out in a national poll.

Regarding big business, to take one example, Drier notes that 74 percent of Americans believe corporations have too much influence on American life and politics today (New York Times/CBS News), 60 percent of Americans—including 75 percent of Democrats—believe that “the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy” (Pew), and 58% of Americans said they support breaking up “big banks like Citigroup” (the PCI poll, cited by the Wall Street Journal), which Drier points out is “a key plank of Sanders’ platform and the goal of a bill that Sanders sponsored in the Senate.” He also notes that 73% of Americans favor tougher rules for Wall Street financial companies (Lake Research), and finally, that 64% favor regulating greenhouse gas emissions and requiring utilities to generate more power from “clean” low-carbon sources (Duke University).

inability to address your points.

Did you see that that piece of crap article accusing Bernie of being a communist and quoting his own words and actions in an attempt to prove it. That is the kind of BS which the Koch brothers and the other super conservative PAC are going run as commercials non stop if Bernie wins the nomination.

You can't win the Democratic nomination without gaining a lot of very formidable, very rich, very unscrupulous enemies. They will do there best to destroy him in eyes of the American voters and, unfortunately, Bernie has inadvertently given them enough ammunition over the to succeed. They will blanket the air ways with that sort of crap. They will take his relatively harmless words and actions and twist them into a semi-believable picture of Bernie that the majority of Americans will not be able to vote for.

If you think the Swift Boat garbage was bad, "you ain't seen nothing yet".

More Iowans identified themselves with socialist. I don't think it is any longer the bad word that conservatives will be able to use to scare people.

.... the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, don't you? The poll you are citing is is not representative of Iowans as a whole and certainly doesn't represent American voters as a whole - certainly no more than a poll of DU users would.

Especially with young people. They have no memories of the Cold War. Either way, we'll find out in a couple of weeks what Iowans think. Won't we?

....and that my friend is no test at all.

In 2012 only about 20% of registered Democrats In 2012, 31.5% of Iowans were registered Democrats and 31.2% were registered Republicans. The rest, 36.3% of voters, were registered as having “no party” and thus they could attend the Democratic caucuses.

So in in 2012 only 20% of 31.5% of Iowans attended the Democratic caucuses. The calculated out to (20% times 31.5%) 6.3% of all Iowans If the same number attend the Iowa Democratic caucuses in 2016, a candidate would only need 3.2% of Iowan voting for him or her to claim victory.

Now I expect that this time around more people will caucus due to the nature of the race between Bernie and Hillary - but what can we expect - 40% or 50% of the Demarcates might attend - that would be a new record by far. So let's say 50% attend. That would mean that only 8% of Iowans are needed for either Hillary or Bernie to claim victory, and that is far less than one tenth of one percent of the voters in the United States. NOT IMPRESSIVE!!!

Why bother with it- if it is meaningless?

Oh and another thing, you were only half right when you said only Democrats can vote in a Democratic primary or caucus

I've gotten somewhat closer recently, as some of my positions have become wholly or partly accepted as mainstream by the Democratic Party.

The entire Democratic Party has moved to my long-standing position on Gay Marriage, for example. And their position on immigration has approached my own.

All of the candidates as well as the President oppose the PLCAA, although my position on gun control is much further to the left than any of theirs.

For example I support Australian Style Gun Control, and by Australian Style Gun Control I mean doing it with style, while riding a Red Tricycle and a carrying a Common Garden Mattock. (So common, in fact, that I had to look it up on google...lol.)

This is what Gun Control means to me:

"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks"

Isaiah 2-4

this premise is simply false:

As someone who lives in Europe, the US is so far to the right to the vast majority of the developed world. So much so, that the county looks backwards. You have literally no worker rights, no regulated economy at all, no universal health care, no affordable higher education, income inequality that is out of site, and vacation for the vast majority of workers (2 weeks/year) which is laughable. Ghandhi once said, ""A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members"...I can honestly say, the US treats its weakest like shit.

It's long past time that the US takes a huge swing to the left just to make it somewhat normal again.

I suggest that you not hold your breath.

However, it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Bernie has always said he cannot do this alone. We the people need to make it happen.

Good. Many of us have absolutely no appetite for that kind of politician, who sells out the people he's supposed to be representing.

As for the rest, you're just repeating variations on the same talking points the wannabe political experts have been insisting on since the start of this campaign. Just ignore the polls that show a majority of Americans supporting his positions, just ignore the head to head polls showing him beating any Republican challenger, no he just can't win because gosh darn he's just so extreme, and so grumpy and not polished enough, and he doesn't even comb his hair half the time. How could a wide eyed radical like that ever win?

Did it come up for a vote this last congress - No!

Will it come up for a vote in the 2015 secession - No!

Will it come up for a vote in the 2016 secession - No!

Will it come up for a vote if Bernie is elected President in 2017 - No! Because there is no feasible path for the Democrats to pick up 14 Republican seats while maintaining the ten seats they have to defend in . Even if the Democrats could end up with the 60 seats necessary to force closure on the bill, it will never make it though the Republican controlled House.

Will the bill have a snowball's chance in hell of passing during the reminder of Bernie's four year term - No! The House is very likely to remain in Republican hands at least until the 2020 census results are published - gerrymandering you know.

So a bill is no better than an idea until it is passed and this one doesn't have a shot.

Sanders is appealing to a very narrow segment of the party and will not be the party's nominee

Google is great for finding quotes that suit your purpose.

However, you should do a little research before you quote someone. John Quincy Adams was a one term President, and with good reason. As President he was almost totally ineffective. From the book, Our Country's Presidents" by Ann Bausum, "As Chief Executive, Adams ignored political strategy, stuck to his principles, and found himself generally miserable. It seemed that no one supported him." (One day that may describe Bernie if he wins the nomination and the general election.)

You see, the reason Adams talked about his principles is because as President he had no real accomplishments principally because he was stubborn and would not compromise his precious principles. That cost him a chance to make his biggist dream (a national transportation system of roads and canals) a reality. Such a waste.

However, perhaps the quote is appropriate after all. In some ways John Quincy Adams reminds me of you.

than you.

I can easily see President Sanders, and the large, diverse crowds of enthusiastic supporters lead me to believe that a majority of Americans do, too. I support his ideas, and I appreciate the way those ideas are laid out and the way he presents his plans.

It's true that I'm far to the left of much of America. What that doesn't say, though, is that I haven't changed my basic positions on issues over my lifetime. I used to be fairly politically moderate. Much of America ran to the right, leaving me looking like I'm "far left." Happily, like a pendulum always does, we're finally seeing it swing back, and suddenly so many people are moving back toward me again.

This is where I completely disagree with you. The primary goal of a political party is to work for issues. While winning elections is part of that, it's not a win unless the people elected will actually work for those issues. When a party is more concerned with serving the big money donors than the voters that make up the party, it's not a win to elect the servants of big money.

I fear for the Democratic Party if we elect another neo-liberal. We already have the bat-shit crazy right wing party; the Democratic Party is in danger of becoming irrelevant with both the neoliberals and neoconservatives controlling the 2 major parties. Bernie's record proves that your claim is false. Republicans respect him, whether they agree with him or not, and are a hell of a lot more likely to work with him than with HRC.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/71225/bernie-sanders-is-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway

That leads me to say that "not known for his stellar relations" is also false. He works well with others and knows how to compromise. His record shows this.

Referring to Bill Clinton? I will acknowledge his snake-charmer charisma for many weak minds. His skills? His skills led our party into the neoliberalism that is destroying it and our nation.

... as a Congressman and Senator. And serving on committees, voting for a particular bills, and entering into a debates are not considered accomplishments in the House and Senate. It's what even the worst politicians in those chambers do every day.

You see, it is hard to get anything done in Congress when you are famous mostly for criticizing both political parties.

what constitutes accomplishments. And, as I'm sure you know, he's accomplished plenty. Your desperate attempts to redefine "accomplishments" enough to limit his is rather embarrassing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/6/1428616/-Bernie-Sanders-What-the-Hell-Have-You-Done-for-Us-Lately

Bernie has a lot of ideas, and good intentions, but as your link shows, he has accomplished next to nothing in his 25 years in Congress, and there is a damn good reason for that. Almost no one, except maybe a few of his most progressive Democratic colleagues, who have agreed with his goals over the years. In addition he turned off most of his fellow Congressmen and Senators who might have been his allies with his constant bitching about both parties.

Bernie wasn't ever a leader in Congress and was totally ineffective in accomplishing his goals. There is absolutely no reason to believe he could be an effective President. None what so ever. He would make Jimmie Carter and George W. Bush look like great Presidents in comparison.

But I am not really worried about that; the Republicans will use their PAC money to destroy Bernie long before the general election. Read up on his past - you will see that you don't have to be a great political operative to figure out how to use the things Bernie has said and done to devastate him using commercials paid for by shady Republican PAC's funded with hundreds of millions of dollars from contributors like the Koch brothers.

Oh sure, they will attack Hillary if she is the nominee, but at least we know her vulnerabilities because the Republicans have been attacking her on those points for years in every way possible. Because they don't yet view Bernie as a threat, they haven't wasted any money on him yet. But the minute he shows any signs of being to win the nomination, the attacks will be furious and relentless. I have seen the material they can use; he wouldn't survive.

You can define anything in any nonsensical or incorrect way that you choose. You "get" to, just like so many "get" to choose not to "believe" in science.

That doesn't make your definitions correct. Just self-serving.

... that we have many of the same beliefs. And it is because of my dedication to those positions that don't want to see Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee. Relying in on ample evidence I have come to the conclusion that if he wins the nomination, Bernie will never be elected President, and if by some miracle he would win the general election, he would be a totally ineffective President.

As a party we cannot afford to risk either one of those probably outcomes.

Based on polls and other factors, Sanders has a better chance of winning the general election than Hillary Clinton.

Based on his record of working with diverse people to make positive progress, without giving up things already achieved, I think he'd be the most effective we could elect.

Edited to add:

And, based on his steadfast commitment to democratic principles and the 99%, I believe he's the least likely to do harm while in office.