2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOk - help me here - Hillary is president - what CAN she get done?
I think that if she gave the right the world for a biscuit they would turn their backs. My experience is that their sheep hate her even more than Obama. She gets nothing done.
Sanders offers options that many people on the right like. The leadership will not be able to depend on their sheep's hate to block movement on many of the ideas that Sanders will fight for.
What can she get accomplished?
riversedge
(70,285 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)can you offer anything that might help me see differently?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)by nominating the second least-progressive candidate(after "Jim Bob" Webb).
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Those things are the only reason she wants to be president. No one who holds hawkish foreign policy views wants anything progressive to happen in this country or this world. To be a hawk is to be a reactionary.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts).....and you buy right into it....
If you think Sanders would get anything more done you are insane.
But I'm sure Jim Webb would be great.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)getting more done for this country. He has already explained how he was going to have
Congress get more done -- by motiving the American people first. And Sanders has
already demonstrated his ability to excite and motivate everyday Americans. It's when
the people become motivated that they will get on the backs of their Congressional
representatives and senators to get things moving. And Congress will listen - if they
want to hold on to their jobs, that is.
This does make sense, doesn't it? (Sanders didn't say the last sentence in the above
paragraph - I did).
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)And the American people have given little indication they are going to throw them out of office.
This country is in a standstill until about 2022 when the new districts can be drawn, IF we can get a hold of the state legislatures. Unless we get a Publican prez. Then we are fucked.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)The American people means little
daleanime
(17,796 posts)or is the one Bernie's offering still the best I've heard.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)Don't get me wrong I'm for Bernie as well but I'd rather keep the White House. It's just that post was very naive
daleanime
(17,796 posts)no, it would have saved you so time.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)what's yes look like?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)get people interested, even excited and ready to commit. That's one of his strong points.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Hillary Clinton is an establishment politician and will be an establishment president if she's elected. I expect she'll do nothing to change the status quo; she's beholden to too many power brokers. Whether we like it or not, they are more important than we are.
There's a reason why Wall Street would be happy with either Clinton or Bush.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Many big problems and only great fundamental changes can turn history
senz
(11,945 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)So she could get at least one veto done.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are reintroducing legislation to revive the Glass-Steagall Act, which would force big banks to split their investment and commercial banking practices.
Glass-Steagall was first passed in 1933 but repealed during the Clinton administration, leading many progressives to argue that it contributed to the 2008 financial collapse.
Warren and McCain, along with their cosponsors, Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said in a statement that the legislation would make big banks that are "too big to fail" smaller and safer and minimize the likelihood of a government bailout.
-snip-
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247093-warren-mccain-introduce-bill-to-bring-back-glass-steagall
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)though one republican Senator, does not bi-partisanship make.
postatomic
(1,771 posts)Feel better now?
Response to SoLeftIAmRight (Original post)
Agschmid This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)She's hated by the mouth-breathing right, and owned by their masters. A bad combination. She cannot tell the truths that must be told if we're to move ahead.
msongs
(67,436 posts)a rogue with no party support
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)one must hope
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bill Clinton, your idea of a "strong" candidate, was a total failure at getting Dems elected to any other office. In fact, he was clearly happy that we lost Congress in 1994-he proved that by almost never saying the words "give me a Democratic congress" when he was running for re-election in '96(despite the fact that he had nothing to lose by fighting for a Democratic recovery in the House and Senate).
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)It seems likely that if the Congress is held by Republicans, she will not be able to do very much, but neither will Sanders or O'Malley. On foreign policy I don't see her as being hugely different from Obama, which has good points and bad points. She isn't as belligerent as a Republican President would be; she is more inclined to try diplomacy first. But she is not adverse to sending troops in if she deems it necessary. And the grounds on which she would send troops in are more broad than many people here would like.
Domestically, she will be able to do some things through executive order and she will, in my estimation, use the Veto to protect minorities and women. But she is likely to go for half or even a quarter a loaf in order to get something, and she will be willing to make concessions to the right in order to get those items.
The other wrinkle is if she has coattails, can she create a Democratic Congress, or even a Democratic House/Senate. At that point, her weaknesses become more of an issue; because she is a centrist. She is not likely to use that majority to really craft the solutions we would like to see.
Bryant
Cal33
(7,018 posts)motivated to do so. Bernie Sanders has already shown how capable he is of getting
people motivated. In recent decades I have never seen anyone quite like him. Please
read my Post #15 above in this thread.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Quite a lot actually.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)a Republican congress.
Your deluding yourselves.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I do think they they will have to come up with a different strategy
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They may work with her. Not sure if good or bad.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)to the issues of what's causing America's big problems at this time, and how he is
going to handle them. This is appealing to everyone who can reason a little -- both
Dems. and Repubs. Sure, it will take time. There are still many people who haven't
yet heard of him. And he does have time. I believe that Sanders will get a lot done
- perhaps not so much in his first term, but certainly in his second, when I expect
both Houses will be overwhelmingly Democratic. Of course there is the question of
his age. I wish he were 10 years younger.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They will not help him.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)is to have more Dems. in Congress. Without it not too much can get done.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Even if we did we coukd not overcome the filibuster.
Sanders woukd have the same problems as Hillary would.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Bernie could have a Democratic House and a filibuster-proof Senate. Have you noticed
that Democrats don't say much about the Republicans blocking whatever the Dems. are trying
to accomplish? Bernie is different. As president he wouldn't hesitate to see that the
Republicans will get the full blame for whatever they are doing to block any progress.
Everybody will get to hear it - loud, clear, and often. And Elizabeth Warren will be doing
the same thing in the Senate.
More and more Republicans will finally get to know the truth of what their leaders are really
doing to our nation.
Things will be different. The main thing I am worried about is his age. Will he still have the
energy when he is 81 and 82? I wish he had started 10 years sooner. Forty years in
politics and he has no political baggage whatsoever. He doesn't owe anybody a thing. It's
incredible! Bernie is no ordinary man!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)Stardust
(3,894 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The internet is a very dangerous place to believe what appears on Democratic boards ... especially when it tells you exactly what we want to believe.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)She has a broad alliance and coalition who back her agenda and can rally the troops. As we can see from the Iran Deal, intra-party coalitions and alliances are key. Something Bernie doesn't possess.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)over to his side once they have heard him (both Dems. and Repubs.), it won't be long before
he'll have enough of them motivated. And it's motivated people who cause things to get
done.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)And thats why endorsements matter. Bernie will spend too much time battling his own party, Hillary has a broad coalition.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)for the Corporations and 1%. She would trumpet how she was able to work with the other side and bemoan the fact that she couldn't get anything done for the people b/c she didn't have the votes.
Sound familiar. It's worked for the last two Corporate "Democratic" Presidents.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)I am sorry but your thought process that the right will work with Bernie is borderline delusional.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Sanders doesn't even know all his colleagues in the Senate. He does not involve himself in the "housekeeping" at all.
Hillary did that kind of work, though--she's worked closely with most of the Senate. She knows how to whip votes, because she's had to do just that under Robert Byrd's stern patronage. She wasn't just pushing a yeah or nay button as a legislator, she was working behind the scenes to massage and correct legislation, AND convince peers to vote the way she wanted.
And I agree with riversedge's characterization of your comments.
FWIW, there are a lot of people on the left who don't think Sanders' priorities are theirs, and who believe he doesn't care about them at all. Don't assume that everyone on the left feels his "bern" because they don't.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)that will be good sometimes -
"she's worked closely with most of the Senate"
and this could help
But - I asked what will she get accomplished?
MADem
(135,425 posts)I can tell you this--if you don't know anyone, and you've never in nearly a third of century shown the capacity to work as a team player, engaging in negotiation, compromise, push and pull, you're not a good bet for suddenly being able to create some sort of mass groundswell of cooperation to drive legislation forward for the executive to sign into law, are you?
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)But other countries also have elections so that is a bit of a stretch , she may be familiar with protocol but to just assert she is chummy with every leader is just ludicrous .
MADem
(135,425 posts)And other countries, when they have elections, generally choose their leaders from people who are already inside the political system, not outliers. Even if a leader is replaced, the odds are fair to good that Clinton has met and talked with that individual.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)Everyone knows is not easy regardless of who resides in said position of President...
She knows the players as well as how to play the game, sad situation that but it does give her the ability to fight harder and perhaps win the deals she puts in play
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Honest question
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)focusing on a "few" high profile issues will ensure so many get ignored, I have no doubt it is not an easy attempt to change the current status quo regardless of who becomes president where the wealthiest of us have become a type of silent true leaders, I have no illusions true justice will finally take a front row seat in our nation but I have a glimmer, just a glimmer that those three running on the ticket presently have not only the heart but the stealth in determination that perhaps can defy the odds that at present are against us...
senz
(11,945 posts)Xyzse
(8,217 posts)From what I have seen they are close to each other in the issues.
In certain ways, I think she might be more effective than Obama, particularly as she has more contacts and possibly ways to fill her cabinet more securely.
I don't fully support her stances in some issues, but I can live with her. If she wins the nomination, you better believe I will support her.
That is my same stance when it comes to any other Democratic candidate at this time.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)that would get as much done
it has been a surprise what Obama has been able to do
Some of it I did not like
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Cosmocat
(14,568 posts)That rs wont 100"percent oppose the "socialist" 100 percent on everything.
Hillary OR Bernie will get done what bho or ANY democrat would get done w rs in this era, jack shit that isnt a complete handout to the ultra rich.
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)has already done the outreach to congressional Democrats than Obama never did. She also has a proven track record of working across the isle, which Sanders does not. If you're simply interested in hearing a candidate/president validate your anger and telling you what you want to hear , Sanders is your man. If you care about government and how the country function, Clinton is far better qualified. If you see the president's role as entertainer in chief on cable news and aren't one of the many millions dependent on government functioning in order to survive, then what gets done really doesn't matter, particularly for those well off enough to benefit from any GOP tax cuts aimed toward the upper-middle class.
The reason that Clinton doesn't promise the moon is because she knows she would be expected to deliver on promises she makes. Sanders seems entirely unencumbered by the prospect of actually governing. He has no history of getting any reform legislation passed, despite three decades in congress. If he had any ability to carry out any of that, would we have seen at least one successful piece of reform legislation? He has been in office during periods in which the Democrats controlled both houses. Why should he magically be able to do from the White House what he hasn't been able to do from congress? He doesn't appear to have any strong relationships with his fellow legislators, since not a single one has endorsed him. Without congress, all any president can do is issue executive orders, command the military and make speeches. But being one of their own, he won't be expected to deliver. We already know they've excused the very policies, like drones, they accused Obama of being a criminal for carrying out. For some, issues and policy matter far less than their simply liking the person in office.
Polls demonstrate that the majority of Sanders supporters make over $80k a year. That makes them fortunate economically (the upper 25% and up) and it also means they aren't dependent on government like much of the poor. It's no skin off their nose if the GOP gains the White House, and lord knows they see their anger toward the super rich as more important than anything and anyone else.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)I think Bernie will cause too much intra-party fighting and disagreements.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)any speculation what she might get accomplished?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)She has actual proposals, from jobs, to economy, to climate, to education, unlike Bernie.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)what would that be
serious question
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if I were to bet, I'd say her first item would be the passage of an increase to the minimum wage (probable, in increments over a period of 4-8 years, with a final MW of $12.00/hr).
There is bipartisan support for the idea in both Houses.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I would say - fight for 15 - but would be happy if she got this done
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)BainsBane
(53,056 posts)That you refer to your fellow citizens as less than human, as sheep, shows exactly why your particular approach to politics fails. People don't tend to stand with or support people or movements that demean them, nor should they. Anyone who sees great sections of the public as inferior is not going to be successful in convincing people they care about equality when they reveal a view of human worth that is the opposite of that.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)most of the rest are very close
I see that huge numbers have little understand and less have basic facts
the amount of evidence that indicates the power of advertising is overwhelming
sorry, I do not live in your world
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)where every adult gets one vote, and no one's is worth more than that of any other citizen.
I have also found that one of the chief benefits of education is that one comes to understand how little they actually know. Without that awareness, there is no space for learning or growth.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)education
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)This is a partisan site (on the left, that is). You can run your GOP Morale and Welfare program somewhere they might appreciate the gesture more. Here at DU, most of us have long realized what Republicans are doing to this nation. And we don't coddle them.
doc03
(35,363 posts)after another from the time she takes office to the time she leaves.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)strengthen the hand of the multinationals, find somebody to bomb, arm bloody "moderates", run for President, get into pissing matches with Putin, run for President, shadily destabilize South American nations with the audacity to not "play ball", give away more of the commons for the benefit of the corporations, push for and sign "free trade" agreements, run for President, tell whoppers, cover up shit on general principle that is really minor, jump at her shadow, further entrench neoliberal control of the party, run for President, schmooze, appoint socially moderate, corporate embracing fiscal conservatives to every level of the courts, look out for the multinational corporations, punch hippies at every opportunity, go on phony listening tours as reelection time comes, run for President, and fiddle while the world burns.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)People call talk radio and make a statement then ask the host to defend against it.
Your depiction of Hillary is false so no answer can be given by someone who does not agree with it.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)That is why I ask
What is one thing on her agenda that you think she can get accomplished?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)in this country and possibly other countries.
She has made that a goal her whole life.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)She can wage war for 90 days, without the permission or approval of congress.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Privatization of public goods and services
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Her good friend the DNC chair will see to that.