smashing entitlement programs like Medicare and SS won't cut it...

Coverage of T-rump, lawsuit against HRC. Negatives against HRC non-stop.

The media was trying to prop the Donald up...last night. It didn't work.

if we- as a country- can just keep on building the progress and prosperity typical of the past two Democratic Presidencies and breaking the pattern of rushing right out to elect Republicans to trash everything all over again. PLEASE! It just seems like we- as Americans- either don't believe we deserve good things or just like punishing ourselves with Republican policies when things are starting to get better.

good enough that there is money to be stolen again, and then Republicans swoop in and grab everything that isn't nailed down. They can't let Democrats stay in too long that voters actually feel the economy is working, just long enough that there is some "equity" to cash out.

This should be our meme.

Take the House and Senate back. Obama had 2 years, and shit changed. The only way change is going to happen is to lock the Regressives out of government entirely.

And they want action, not empty promises.

This bull about small incremental change being 'good' is what the establishment and conservatives want.

America and the world need massive changes to make America work for *all* people.

Change is good. Progressing is good. Looks like we will be stuck in neutral for another 4 years...

Massive positive change would require massive tax hikes to pay for. Trump's plan is to bankrupt the nation then sell off the commons in a fire sale. That's also massive change but you don't want that.

'Incremental' is usually a term for not changing anything. And 'massive' changes? 'Massive' tax hikes? To what degree does that mean?

Our Congress can massively bail out Wall Street to the tune of ~$800B. People initially pushed back and won, then the Democrats can up with a so-called plan and got it pushed thru. So, we can easily find tax payer money that is redistributed to Wall Street - I think we can find tax money for changes as well.

And, yes, we need money for infrastructure and programs that benefit *all* Americans. So a tax hike on the rich - yes increase their taxes, they are still unbelievable rich.

The Waltons (Sam's heirs, not John-boy's siblings) are worth about $145 billion. I figure if you were to confiscate the entire fortunes of the One Percent you could probably come up with $20 trillion. Which is about what it would take to fix the problems facing America. Problem is, those problems would come back, but you can only nationalize the One Percent's assets once.

If you want to raise taxes you have to raise everyone's taxes. Even on DU that's an unpopular stance.

It is very simple: If WE want our country to be better WE have to pay for it. Not "the rich." Not "welfare queens" or "limousine liberals." ALL of us. Are you willing to?

...we get things done in America. You do know that the top tax rate was at one time 90% and everyone did just fine.

And, you know, it doesn't all have to be done in one year. Every year with sufficient tax revenue, we continue to rebuild America, which puts people back to work, which increases tax revenues... This is simple stuff to figure out.

Also, nobody said anything about 'assets' - that is a diversion from the truth. It's taxing income - all income.

Raising taxes on DU is an unpopular stance? really? Sounds like a conservative meme.

It takes money to run a country of 310 million plus people. The idea, if you have read the Constitution, and believe in the Constitution is that it is We the People For the People By the People. *All* Americans should have a very decent living. It is what society and civilization is all about.

...that we're so far in the hole that everyone is going to have to help get us out of it. Yes, we have to raise taxes on the rich...but if we just doubled taxes on them, or tripled, quadrupled or whatever else you want to do to get them down to $35,000 a year in after tax income, you will need about a hundred years to fix the problems Reagan's tax slashes created.

and they're far, far, far more powerful than you and those they can fool into supporting them, or even who basically agree with them, far, far, far more numerous than you.

We actually have a very good, blessedly stable basic structure, one of the best on the planet, and would that more people treasured that wonderful reality. We need to be very careful to avoid destructive changes. A simple fact is that most voters in our democracy want an end to corruption and money in politics, but they really do not want to find out what those "massive" experimental changes unappreciative groups on the right and the left want might turn out to be.

Btw, the ship of state doesn't turn quickly even in calm, windless seas. If we were to win both houses of Congress and the presidency, we still would not be able to achieve all that Bernie and Hillary want to take on in the next 8 years. So incremental it is.

But, no, we do not have a very good 'blessedly' stable basic structure. We did once when real Democrats were in control. America has fallen to the wayside because our establishment government are only working for the oligarchy.

I guess there are people, like me, who do not artificially limit what changes can be accomplished - doers not procrastinators.

How many mornings have you woke up to find that some branch of the military was in control under some general you'd never heard of?

How many civil wars, as various states and regions broke away, or tried to?

Ever drive down to the demilitarized zone around Texas out of curiosity to see the army outposts ready to break into renewed conflict at the drop of a hat?

How many relatives had to flee their state because vicious militias and drug cartels made staying too dangerous?

Have you EVER gone to the grocery store only to find the shelves still empty?

Have you ever been the target or a member of a "cleansing" mob?

Imo, you literally have no idea what you are talking about when you say we do not have a stable structure, whether it's something you regard as blessed or something that should be trashed.

Btw, there are 125 million households in the U.S., with AT MOST an average of a week's food on hand, millions with far less, and no water supply nearby except for what comes out of the faucet. Ever had the water go off and wonder panicky what you'd do if it didn't come back on? The answer is "no," of course.

Best thing to do is to make sure Executive and Congress are on the same page. Kick the GOP out on Election Day. That would help a lot.

Now fast change can come from the Supreme Court as they can declare laws unconstitutional. So we need to get more left-leaning judges on the court.

That comes back to having Executive and Congress on same page, so good judges get confirmed rather than endlessly blocked by GOP'ers

FDR was able to get thru 'massive changes'. And in reality, they were not 'massive' changes - just changes that helped the masses.

The best thing to do is to have a President who doesn't need a lot of 'pushing' rather one who already believed in what to people want.

And of course, we need to completely remove all republicans from Congress. They are anti-civilization and anti-society.

what narrative they will have to come up with in order to keep the viewers and advertisers engaged. It scares the heck out of me.

I can only hope that they can continue to be distracted by Trumps daily antics so that they don't have to have a narrative at all.

they are looking for ANYTHING to prop up the horse race meme, and are despondent the polls don't support it.

They are also hopping on the "trump is the outsider" train as fast as they can.

It's amazing to watch. All of a sudden, his temperment and judgement are non-issues and it's him versus what people see as wrong with the guv.

The Senate is looking good. The House is still tough, but if Republican in-fighting and/or discouragement breaks out in full force, that's a "change" I'd love to see.

Maybe we can encourage the media to play up that kind of change.

of 50% or higher. Its hard to make the case for radical change

i.e. Trump and Sanders. But Sanders lost a close one, and Trump turned out to be unacceptable even to most of those who do want change. So Hillary wins by default. Which is fine. I'm almost certain Hillary will beat Trump, but I think Bernie would have beaten him by more, because the desire for big change is real, and merely being thwarted by the peculiarities of this election, not by any great desire for Hillary's "boring, incremental change."

It really wasn't close at all once we moved past NH. But the media convinced a lot of people that radical change was in the air. It wasn't. Even the Rs voted more heavily for their establishment candidates than they did for Trump. It's just that their numbers dissipated the 60% of the vote that went to each one of the establishment candidates, leaving the minority of voters that "wanted change" to back Trump.

...all the independents in the states with closed primaries (remember that Hillary is underwater in favorability outside the Dem base). As for Trump, toward the end when the field had narrowed to 3 or 4 candidates, he was often getting more votes than everyone else combined.

The desire for change is not a media made concoction. The desire for change is real. The desire to get the influence of money, corporations and the 1% out of government is real. Democrats would dismiss this at their peril. We are fortunate that the Republican vessel for change is such a narcissistic nut job. If it were someone sane and true to his message, we may not be feeling so comfortable right now. In fact we shouldn't feel comfortable yet. We need to get the Democrats out to vote to avoid a disaster. Look what happened in Great Britain.

Sanders campaigned on revolution and was rejected by the voters. Hillary campaigned on incremental change and won.

And yes, lest we forget, the hunger for change that Sanders in part represented didn't vanish. What we do with it will be a big factor in our party's future viability, too.

The GOP has been revealed to be brittle to the point of breaking. How adaptable to the real world are we?

is an oxymoron. Elections essentially are about change. That is why we have them. Otherwise we would be living in a monarchy or a dictatorship.

that representation will come from one of the most progressive candidates in history. That progressive candidate is in the process of being embraced by tons of Republicans.

What the hell more change do they want?

What people want is for YOU to change.

Do a little experiment. Find someone who thinks we should Throw the Bums Out and ask him who he voted for last election. Assuming he voted at all, he probably voted for the incumbent. No, everyone thinks his congressman is great, his car is perfect, his kids are angels, his spending habits are pristine, etc., but it's YOUR politicians, lifestyle choices and so on that have to go.

The only way we get change is if you decide to change yourself.

(Note: 74% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.)

The "wrong track" number is a combination of many factors: congressional rating, views on various issues, etc.

But, Tweety and the rest of the punditry are using this as an indictment on President Obama. Yes, President Obama who is sitting on a 54% approval rating!

The Corporate Media is so full of shit.