Let's not rock the boat.

Why be bold?

There is nothing pressing that needs to change immediately.

The environment is fine
The gap between the rich and the poor is just where it needs to be
Health care is perfect
War is good
Our workers have it the best
Civil justice is fair
Immigration is orderly
The banks stopped giving away toasters showing fiscal responsibility
American corporations pay their fair share
Student debt is manageable

Hillary--because

If folks want to let the current of corporate influence sail the ship by all means vote for Hillary. I want a captain to turn the boat around and sail in the right direction against the current of big money.

She's deep in debt to superpacs

("Sanders" below equally applies to O'Malley, Chaffee, Webb, etc... it's not a problem particular to him.)

We're still at war

We'll still be at war under a Sanders administration

TPP

Sanders would also negotiate trade deals, and he'll be pulling his USTR appointees from the same bag of Democrats that Obama did.

Drug War

Sanders would equally be sworn to enforce our current stupid drug laws, and would take it equally as seriously as Obama has.

Every candidate is "the status quo" if that's what you consider that term to mean. The US government is a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy that turns very, very slowly.

That's not going to happen; it would take at least that long just to renegotiate the Single Convention that legally requires us to prohibit drugs, let alone move the domestic politics far enough in that direction to actually do it. If that's all you'll accept as "progress", then, yes, it's "hopeless" by your definition, and you should despair.

If, OTOH, you're willing to look at things like the sentencing reform Holder and Obama have rolled out, or the Iran deal, as progress (and you really should), then it's not "hopeless" at all.

I just can't see any politician accepting corporate sponsorship being able to do more and we need more.

Sanders will upset the apple cart and we need that. I'm pro-Obama and I'll support Hillary if she wins the primary.

But, I hope we can do better. This is our opportunity.

Rather than just scattering the apples all over the ground? There's a reason apples are put in carts to begin with.

Elect someone who is supported by the people so we can all enjoy an apple.

You Rock!

Realistic policies to get apples to all.

the people can reach them. Otherwise they get shipped up the lane to the rich man's estate.

is a bad thing if it involves things like the $15 minimum wage, which is about what it was 40 years ago adjusted for inflation, or trying to increase union membership and power so that it is closer to what it was 40 years ago, the financial institutions, college tuition, keeping factories here in the US, etc. etc. etc. The status quo today is way worse than it was 40 years ago.

We've gone so far to the right that we think reclaiming these things is somehow "upsetting the apple cart." Whose apple cart? If all we can buy or sell is apples, then we need to upset a few of them, in fact, upsetting all of them wouldn't be so bad it seems to me.

There are a lot worse places to be than the US.

I acknowledge it's a cudgel but it's one people really do need to come to terms with.

Of course whoever is President is going to preserve order. They will run the executive branch, in existence over 200 years. They are going to have to deal with Congress. Face it, we have separation of powers in this country. That's why one person cannot impose their will even if elected to the Presidency.

Because, the President really doesn't matter?

Make up an absurd position to distract. Do you remember the part about the separation of powers and that the President is not an all powerful dictator? The Presidency is not enough to "upset the apple cart." You'd need much broader change than that.

This election is over a year away. Meanwhile there will also be 535 elections regarding Congress yet no interest in them whatsoever. Because the Presidency is all that matters. Governors and State Houses and there's no one passionately discussing who will be there.

Swapping Bernie for Obama - it's unbelievable no one has learned that the change they want is not a simple matter of having the right person as President.

A lot of you wish the other voters would simply disappear or be so gullible they will go along with Bernie just because he says what you like to hear. That obviously never happens. Humans disagree.

The status quo is pretty much OK with the vast majority of voters.

I agree that paying attention to Congress is more important but you have a terrible way of winning allies.

Winning the allies out there is not going to be done by such sentiments as therein expressed.

If people wanted some major change in the status quo,they'd pay attention to who is in Congress.

And you might be upset to know the changes they want are not the ones you want.

Political Revolution! It will take millions of Americans to help pressure the other politicians for change. Getting Bernie elected is only the beginning of the work we must do.

the nuts and bolts are that we don't need any revolution. We merely need to vote in a Congress that will change the laws. And quit assuming that all we have to do is get the Presidency. We don't want one person's will to rule. No one has tried to amend the Constitution to allow for a dictator president in the history of our country. People who want the "apple cart upset" want what? Whatever they want will not be solved by a particular president.

Some seem to want a dictator instead of a functioning govt. And frankly, I'm not sure I want to give govt so much control considering we will eventually have a Republican president who will turn around and use all that power and control for evil.

I'm kind of a straightforward liberal. Buy that I mean I identify with people like Tom Harkin, Teddy Kennedy, the "good side" of LBJ and Hubert Humphrey, FDR, and today Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown etc.....Those are the basic principles that Sanders and stands for, and maybe O'Malley (still nit sure but open minded).

But the Democratic Party, as an institution abandoned that over the last 30 years for Third Way "Centrism" and became weak parrots of GOP CONservatism and enabler of a Corporate/Wall St. Oligarchy. Either because of timidity and being afraid of having "liberal" principles, or because they got into the same bed as the GOP.

So yeah, unfortunately getting back to at least a sane balance of liberal/conservative and two parties as a real choice requires some apple cart dumping.

Gerrymandering will also prevent a lot of New Democrats coming into office. It will take the people to make a difference here.

And yes to a lesser extent like President Obama did with the ACA?

A good President drives and directs the nation, not keeps it idling in neutral.

One person cannot impose their will? That is what I expect from a President, that's why it's important to know what their beliefs are.

you want someone who can impose their will? Try a dictatorship then.

You have to accept there is a separation of powers. No one's up for changing that. Just the Presidency alone and wishing it were a person with such a god-like personality they could get everyone in Congress to agree with a liberal Promised Land does not work.

You have to have the voters with you. They aren't convinced.

they can't have a cure for cancer or heart disease, tell them the consequences for spending as much as the next ten nations combined on our military. Let them know the military has "lost" trillions of dollars since 2000.

You would have the President sit in the oval office and keep his mouth shut? Wait, I wish President Obama had done that with the fast track legislation for the TPP, but speaking up seemed to work that time, damn it.

the people.

some degree. They did it when circumstances demanded it. FDR had to deal with the Great Depression and LJB dealt with the civil rights movement in the 60s.

I think it depends on exactly how upset people are about social, environmental and economic justice in this country. If we continue the status quo nothing will change but if we can "upset the apple cart" change will happen. Hopefully for good.

And by the way we might say that one person is already pretty much imposing his/her will on the country - remember corporations are people to.

Just wondering.

Or at least you get your country out of it...which is just as important. Nothing can possibly be worse in Iraq and Afghanistan than it is now...and nothing that has happened in either place since we intervened is actually significantly better.

You will agree, I'd hope, that any U.S. military intervention against IS wouid be endless, unwinnable, and utterly pointless. And that we should ask any possible Democratic nominee to stay the hell away from that one if elected.

Sanders would not abrogate our treaty requirements with our allies. Troops will be overseas in harms way.

And it serves no purpose to keep our troops there. Only the wealthy benefit.

Ya know, the actual written policy proposals she's offered, from economics, to college, to Wall Street reform, to climate policy, unlike Bernie who still hasn't released a single policy proposal. Even O'Malley has put forth policy proposals.

Taxing the rich for everything is far from a silver bullet.

But, I think we need to shake things up. The status quo is not working in my opinion.

Taxing the rich is just one silver bullet. Reduce military spending. Stop corporate welfare, End off shore banking and tax evasion, etc. There are many silver bullets.

Bernie calling for a "revolution" translates to "elect me". People have jobs, kids, lives, school, careers, etc. no one is going to spend his entire presidency holding protest signs outside of the white house for his "revolution". He needs policy proposals and a functioning govt, not just empty promises. He's a good and decent man who means well, but without policy proposals it will be impossible to shake up the status quo. I think some here are way overestimating the power of executive branch.

I agree with a lot of what Hillary says but I'm not convinced that she is convinced. I just expect her to answer to her owners once the election is over.

It's true that the President is not the powerhouse many think he/she is. But, Bernie is a good start. Better than the alternatives.

It's also true we need to focus on our state's representatives. The more people see Bernie growing in popularity, the further left our state representatives will be willing to go.

... there are many millions of votes who feel exactly the same way about her. Gawd, I really hope Bernie catches lightening in a bottle . . .

He IS lightning! He's like the Energizer bunny, what with the schedule that he has been keeping these days.

Are suggesting that people don't pay a whole lot of attention to what politicians actually say and do.

That is why I refuse to express any choice for 2016, especially this many months before any election.

So damned many here on DU are so full of shit that I cannot express my displeasure strong enough. There are too damned many children here -- using obvious schoolyard bully tactics -- which does nobody any good, least of all Democratic candidates.

Grow up, sheeple.

Let me explain my position:

I will support any person who gains the 2016 nomination. I will be announcing my preference (most likely) upon the eve of the 2016 DNC convention, and not before. (Not because I don't have an opinion, but because I would prefer not to descend into sophomoric rubbish arguments.)

Only the USA has a media which perpetrates never ending presidential campaigns. On the eve of Obama's 2012 victory, there were already posts here about 2016 candidates. And they have continued since then. What a fucking waste of bandwidth.

Of course, the media is happy to oblige such reality TV. What sells more shampoo and house cleaners than perpetual presidential campaigns, especially when it is framed using a warfare metaphor?

My only question is, Who does this serve?

Please think about that before you descend into the political abyss this many months out.

How is that not part of the current problem in this country?

It is suppose to be up to us, the people to decide who the winning candidate is and not some hand picked group of insiders at what all too often is not much more than a political rally. WE need to let them know who we want, not them telling us who we get to vote for.

My thinking is that one political party has gone off the deep end, and the other is infighting over minutia. For Christ sakes, have you paid any attention whatsoever to what these state governments have been attempting the past several years?

The theocratic GOP already has a majority in a majority of the state legislatures, a majority of the governor's mansions, and a majority in both houses of the US Congress. That is today's political problem, the political reality. Hint: it's not Hillary vs. Sanders, or any other Dem candidate.

So tell me why I should take any childish infighting amongst Democrats seriously. Tell me why I should not support any Democratic nominee for any office without reserve. Tell me that the war is not with the theocratic GOP, but is amongst the current Democratic presidential candidates. Then I will await for your justifications for such an argument.

I won't hold my breath.

Jesus...

The difference between the Democratic candidates pales in comparison to that between the Democratic Party and the theocrats in the GOP.

And the theocrats currently have a majority of all the offices nationwide, except the White House.

So... Hello! Are you paying attention to political reality in the early 21st century. The only office the Dems hold is the White House. So why would anybody not support the party? Without equivocation.

and not "argue" about it? Because we cannot afford to lose the election to Rs? Why do we have primaries at all?

Please do not put words in my mouth. That "inevitable candidate" argument has no substance whatsoever, no matter from which side it is presented.

There is arguing, and then there is slimy politics. I have no problem with former, but a whole lot of issues with the latter. Arguments move a dialog forward, whereas the latter close things off.

As a matter of fact, I am happy that this thread has turned into quite a good dialog on the issues involved. So I may have to change my mind about where to set the bar between the two. As in all such matters ones opinions evolve, which is a good thing.

My best to you.

But the other party is following it, just at a little slower pace.
Waiting until the convention, before backing anyone, is playing into their hands, enabling the continuation of the status quo movement to the Right. We are supposed to be choosing the candidates, not our so-called leaders. We are the ones who are supposed to be choosing our leaders. Not any self-appointed moneyed interests, as is happening now.
Now is the time to be telling them, the people running the show, who we want and not to be settling for what they will allow us to have, i.e., telling us who we get to vote for.

The elections in this country are rigged, from the gerrymandering, to hacked voting machines, to biased voter ID laws, to Republican party heads in charge of interpreting state voting rules and regulations. You're not helping either.
We need to be picking the candidate that reflect our values and back them from the get-go. Not wait until almost the end to decide. Then is too late. The fix is already in.

That is why Bernie Sanders has such a big and growing following now. People are fed up and don't to wait for the next corporate owned candidate to be the one we are supposed to vote for. The idea is to over whelm the corruption and get what we want for a change. Now is the time to start.

but very bad at posting anything with substance.

/ignore.

Nota bene: I have nobody on ignore. I prefer to engage people I disagree with.

She has supported policy in the past that has undermined the social safety net and public goods in favor of privatization and free-market fetishism. Her lack of answers on specific policy (TPP and Keystone for example), her undercutting her own vague policy proposals by taking a specific policy proposal (reinstatement of Glass Steagall) off the table, her lecturing of BLM activists about politics being only about what you can sell, and her campaign people and fundraising consisting of so many corporate and third way actors reinforce my belief on this.

But, you're exactly right. She's going to support the current establishment and we're going to lose this momentum.

We need to shake things up. Hillary, and our country, is owned and not by us.

Has anyone thought to ask her to explain the meaning of her Social Security "enhancement" statements?

Also, Bill tried to derail welfare reform 2x before it got veto proof majority. And work is preferable to welfare, which is why unemployment rate dropped after that bill was signed.

Sounds great. Reality has been quite different. Hillary is full speed ahead on 3rd way neoliberal agenda.

Economic plan for the middle class, paid leave, equal pay, ending tax breaks for job outsourcers, no arctic drilling, Stiglitz for economic policy, etc. Third way!

At least that's what the guards tell us.

Of public money into private insurance company coffers? With actual healthcare costs continuing to skyrocket? Or perhaps the continual handing-over of public education to private corporations? The escalation of government spying on private citizens? The push for trade policy to favor corporate profit over national sovereignty? All in the name of Democrats? That kind of progress should be celebrated by Republicans.

The status quo was a white man in the White House, remember those ancient times?

Like I said, folks like to twist the meaning of phrases.

Helps with the false equivalences.

The ones that abandoned the Republican Party to the nuts and sunk their teeth into the Democratic Party. Anything to say about the specifics I mentioned?

If you want to engage in rhetorical battle you need to come better equipped than that!

What do you have you may have left behind in your armory?

ACA transferring public money to private insurance companies while doing nothing to curtail actual healthcare costs. Democrats supporting charter schools. Democrats supporting government surveillance. Democrats supporting international trade tribunals over national laws.
Anything to say about any of that? That's Obama's legacy and what Hillary means to continue.

Third-way defender to the end. Do you believe that ANYTHING should be a public good or should it ALL be in the hands of the free market?

I support Sanders because his views are great, but I'll have no problem at all voting for Hillary. On women's issues and social issues she's been very good. On other issues she's more centrist, though I would say with a slight bent to left.

your agenda is obvious and I am sure you could get some REAL answers in that other group.

Because she is a woman. At least that is what people have been telling me.
Not that I believe it, I am just passing on information, so don't shoot the messenger!

nothing regarding actual policy whatsoever.

That's sad.

How could anyone even care about politics if that is all they have to look forward to?

I think Bernie would disapprove.

If you think pointing out these facts are "tearing down" I disagree.
I look at it as information in order to make a decision.

There are no citations, or links.

So, Hillary is for military intervention in the Middle East? Is that what she says? Really? I don't believe it.

For the death penalty? Really?

And when did she have these so-called positions? When she was a NY Senator? When she was First Lady?

There are nuances in any political position. No position is so black and white as is portrayed on this chart. And nobody's politics is stagnant.

The chart has no nuance whatsoever, and is nothing less than an attempt to paint Ms. Clinton in the worst light. It is a hit piece, clear and simple.

I posted a link with this.

There are some old positions there. The death penalty one when she was First Lady. And I don't think anybody buys that she is universally for military intervention in the Middle East.

The chart comes off as a hit piece, as does the linked article.

Sorry. I like Bernie a lot. But I don't think he'd support those claims. I certainly do not buy it.

Clinton tears herself down with her voting history.

..

it's more that she's been in a position where she has had to choose between an American worker's livelihood, and a gallon of fuel for her private jet and she knows what she's entitled to and who she owes most (and it sure as heck isn't the American worker)

she just has to sell out the American worker to get what she deserves, and she's done it so many times that she doesn't feel anything toward the American worker, one way, or another

frankly, I think it's her supporters who have more hostility toward American workers, interrupting her message with the annoying reality of what she's meant for their insignificant little lives

Wealthy private interests will continue to exploit human beings all over the world, and there will be little or no regulation of corporations as they continue to destroy our environment with impunity. Privatization will accelerate. Hillary will implement Third Way plans to cut social security and other social programs.

The polarization of wealth will continue to accelerate exponentially. Unions will continue to decline as more international trade agreements that enslave working people are put into effect. Drilling, mining, fracking, etc will continue unabated and unregulated, as poisons are released into our air, and get dumped into our water supply. The abuse of minorities will continue unobstructed. Private prisons will continue to expand. Defense spending will increase, as money for social programs and education decreases. Health insurance companies and health care providers will continue to jack up the prices of their services, rendering Obamacare basically useless to everyone but those on Medicaid.

And on, and on, and on. Oligarchy will expand and become more powerful. Business as usual.

Status quo.

With the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, we finally have the opportunity to elect a president who is not owned by wealthy private interests, who will make a genuine attempt to tackle the systemic problems in the political, economic, and social compartments of our society which desperately need to be addressed.

No President can solve all our myriad problems. Most of that depends on us. A Sanders presidency will give us some of the support we need to begin to solve the problems.

A Hillary Clinton presidency, like a republican presidency, will be nothing but business as usual, and the world will continue to go to hell in a hand basket as life becomes more and more hopeless for billions and billions of people of the earth, and future generations as well.

...I have a long list of issues (election reform, immigration reform, civil rights reform) I want her to deal with.

that's the only reason I can think of

She will push for more "free-market" solutions to public programs that are under-funded because of regressive tax policy.

It's the economic status quo Hillary and her supporters are anxious to protect.

question.

members who will vote for progressive change.

Seriously, send me a list. I will call their offices and verify they will vote as you say.

Social Security, and nominating Conservative justices to the SCOTUS.

If you want more than that in the next 6-8 years, be prepared to be disappointed.

Again, provide me names of members of the GOP House who will vote for what you want.

This isn't disneyland, this is reality.

But I'll shoot high until I know it's not going to happen. And then, if it does not, I'll settle and vote for Hillary.

Until then, I'll vote for the best candidate in my opinion.

No Republican in the US House of Representatives votes for progressive change and they will control the House through 2023 at the least and more likely at least through Jan 2025.

You can rail against it as much as you want, and criticize anyone here as much as you want, this is the consequence of losing control to the GOP of too many state legislatures thus allowing the GOP to gerrymander congressional districts to where it is virtually impossible for Democrats to take back control of the House until it is undone, hopefully after the next census.

And, I suspect you are.

Thanks for the information.

it resulted in GOP Control of the House by 33 seats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012

It was one of only five times in history that the winner of the popular vote in congress did not end up controlling congress.

But, I also see a lot of groundswell support for Bernie and I'm looking for a larger turnout that will overcome these obstacles.

We can only try.

how increasingly rigged/corrupt/dysfunctional the system is for most people--a system that has served him/her so splendidly?

"If it's not working for you then it must be your own fault cuz it's working great for me and my pals Jamie and Lloyd," someone cackled.

(Insert lip service sound bite...lip service sound bite...lip service sound bite...)

So, yes, I believe she will work to keep the status quo. I know she will.

Edit: Fucking active spellcheck didn't work on my subject line.

She supports more wars than Obama.
She's more pro Likud than Obama.
She's been slower to evolve on gay marriage than Obama.
She has more of a history of ties to Wall Street than Obama.
She has more connections to H-1B abusers and offshorers than Obama.

Or did you mean positive things?