...are the number of people who vote Sanders over Clinton if "trust" is their primary issue.

what will they VETO

Hillary will sign bad legislation.

It's been my pet peeve with President Obama. I'd rather have no legislation than bad legislation.

Hillary will sign on to anything, but the banning of cluster bombs, she likes those.

Bernie will say no when no is appropriate.

that she will have to be promoting conservative legislation to have any hope of getting her proposals passed.

I would rather have less accomplished and stay true to liberal ideals with Bernie than to see even more conservatism pushed by a Democrat in Hillary.

who support/own both parties. So nothing for the little people, unless the big people can profit off of it. Enough of that.

He has stayed away from this for the most part, using some vague statements about millions of people rising up. I think it would be helpful for him to be more specific about this.

In today's college tour thing with Chris Matthews, he used an example of Mitch McConnell looking outside his window to see a million kids demanding no tuition, and he also mentioned emails.

Let's go deep on this aspect. I trust that Bernie is 100% sincere. But it isn't enough to just say we'll rise up. In what way? Mobilizing to vote out uncooperative politicians? Hitting the streets in protest? General strike? Emails, petitions and phone calls? Probably some of all of the above, but I'd like for him to articulate his vision of how it will work.

The powers that be have already demonstrated their willingness to ignore our demands. We need to focus on tools of leverage. With a leader who actually wants us to use our leverage to assist him in wresting concessions from power (we haven't had that, IMHO), it could be effective, I'm sure Bernie will hold up his end, but as he says, it won't be enough, nobody can do it alone.

Not only would I like to see him articulate this in more detail,, but it's a major line of attack by people who support the status quo, they say he's making empty promises, or he will just be blocked like Obama (I don't think Obama ever fought for much of anything I wanted him to). So it would go a long way towards getting voters on his side if he could flesh out the tasks, tools, and techniques he wants us to implement to bring about the changes he and so many of us so desperately want and need.

But what we all know is no Democrat can get true progressive legislation done in a Republican Congress.

What he could do is to use the pulpit of President to announce who each Republican is owned by. That's hardball. They don't want their constituents knowing that.

I've watched Bernie for a long time now (many years), he is incredibly skillful in finding some way to reach out to the opposition to get some thing done that benefits the people. Since he was a congressman and senator, this came mostly in the form of amendments. As POTUS he would still have influence on proposed amendments (through proxies in congress) plus he will have other mechanisms specific to the presidency.

Saying who each Republican is owned by sounds more like someone else's job, I can't see Bernie doing that, and if he did, I can't see him limiting it to Republicans (and he should not limit it to them, IMO). NGO's are great at this, maybe he could partner with them.

He would certainly use his loud megaphone and stir up popular support for proposals, daring owned politicians to oppose the will of the people, with the threat of being voted out of office hanging over their heads. Some of them are so secure in their districts that this would have little effect, others are more susceptible to leverage.

I've always thought he would be able to turn congress blue again. Democrats, when they are Democrats, own congress.

We lost congress when the corporate triangulators took over our party, and the people just decided they're all crooks, hence the huge number of people who don't claim to belong to either party anymore, the low voter turnout, and the incredibly low congressional approval rating. The system is completely broken by corporate money, and the people know it, when they aren't being distracted by fear and wedge issues.

If we learn to elect Democrats without corporate money, everything will change. it really will. I hope Bernie will attempt to make eschewing corporate money a membership requirement of the Progressive Caucus (which he co-founded).

But in the meantime, before elections can change things, we'll have to more aggressively influence the process, through direct action of some sort, and I'm looking for Bernie to spell this out in some more detail, if he thinks he can speak openly about it.

Maybe he worries people will shy away if he reveals there's no "easy button" for this process?

I think he could sum it up though by saying, "tooth and nail". And I would take his word on it.

This is exactly what Bernie should do. How can anyone think Congress won't obstruct Hillary Clinton at least as much as they did with President Obama? Push harder from the left.

He can do it in a polite way, his own way, like the gentleman he is. He just has to say, "You can trust be to keep trying, to never give up," and on the other things needed--using the "bully pulpit," appealing to the People (not the media, not the rightwing), getting people mobilized in every way possible.

He did say some of these things today to the students at the U.of Chicago (Chris Matthews interview). One of them that struck me was, he said (Matthews was asking, how would you get it done? tuition free public college), and Bernie said, "No, I wouldn't sit down with Mitch McConnell. I would get a million students outside his window demanding it."

A very great answer!

Anyway, you are so right! That IS the issue--trust--and he needs to use it. It is a great strength of his.

I can only imagine they are holding back. The question is, why? Because it might damage Hillary in the General Election? If so, no need to hold back. We're all aware she is untrustworthy. We don't need to take Bernie's word for it.

No democratic President is going to be able to make a difference if we leave the House and Senate in control of the obstructionist party.....period!

Clinton will not get anything done on a Progressive agenda ( ); very likely nothing even on a Conservative agenda.

Nobody gives a guarantee going into office. Does Clinton have a crystal ball? Did she get an advance vote from Congress on her plans?

Besides, it's worth a try to see what a President and the public could do together. Obama had that chance but refused.

I agree with Sanders... all those votes he needs in Congress are from people who want to get re-elected back home. If enough of the public wants it, oh yes they WILL vote for it. Or be out in 2 to 6 years (shortest and longesst term in Congress). That's what he means by a revolution.

Can't be done? Bullshit. Congress changed hands just a few years ago and certainly can again IF enough people want it badly enough.

Sanders has been in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. He knows the landscape over there. I'd venture to say he knows where some "bodies are buried" over there too. I sure wouldn't bet against him, and he doesn't strike me as a loose talker. I get the feeling he knows where some levers are.

In any case, what have we got to lose? We have a chance of progress with Sanders as opposed to s SURE FIRE GOOSE EGG with Hillary. Gee, that's a tough choice, that is. We're risking sooooo much to try.

No integrity.

No service.

No excellence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511340432

...would also be sending him a more progressive Congress to work with.