The Democratic Primaries Are Not about Revolution

[MineralMan]

They simply aren't. There will be no revolution in 2016. It's not going to happen this year.

If you're waiting for it and will be refusing to accept anything else, you're going to get Republican control of all three branches of government.

That's the sad truth.

[sonofspy777]

1. This year it IS about revolution

You're still welcome to join.

C'mon in, the water's fine!

[Live and Learn]

54. +1000 nt

[Scuba]

59. +1

[Ferd Berfel]

69. THe REvolution has begun and Bernie is leading it.

Come back into the light brother......

[CorporatistNation]

91. THE REVOLUTION IS LONG OVERDUE... There's Somethin Happ'nin Here...As The Song Goes!!!!

[Purveyor]

2. Perhaps we are entering the phase were it is necessary

To 'burn down the village in order to save it"?

[MineralMan]

5. I'm sorry, but that's just silly.

When you burn down the village, the people have no place to live. Today, they die.

I guarantee there will be no villages burned in 2016. All that will happen is even more repressive government if we do not prevent that.

[Kentonio]

72. Oh you 'guarantee' it now?

But you were doing such an admirable act of pretending to be open minded about the eventual outcome previously.

[MineralMan]

74. Yes, actually. Regardless of what happens, there

will be no villages burned. Just a continued decline as Republicans roll back whatever gains we've made. To prevent that, Democrats need to unify behind the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be.

[Kentonio]

77. If Democrats unify behind Sanders then we'll get the revolution against right wing thinking.

Which can then be passed right down to state and county levels. A majority of Americans support his positions, there's no reason why that shouldn't be something we can build a movement around.

[MineralMan]

79. OK. But suppose Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee,

as seems very likely at this point. What happens then? I'll vote for and support Sanders if he is the nominee. I'll do the same if Hillary is the nominee. It seems to me that Democrats need to unify behind whoever becomes the nominee. Do you agree?

In my OP, I didn't specify either candidate. With either, there is no revolution. But, without unity of support for the nominee, we run a great risk, I think, of losing to the Republicans. I don't see that as an option. Do you?

[Kentonio]

80. To a point.

But the problem is that if you hold a fair primary then you can indeed turn around and call for party unity, however if the cards are stacked against one team by the party right from day one then you're going to struggle to get those people on board later.

I think you might also be underestimating quite how angry progressives are right now, and how very little they're being offered. Getting called a bunch of simple naive idiots who just want free stuff, and then told they'll be to blame if the Republicans win the election is not exactly the basis for much 'unity'.

[MineralMan]

81. I'm not calling anyone anything.

I have a candidate I prefer, like most people do, but I'm not going to walk off if that candidate isn't the nominee. The general election is far too important to do that. Instead, I'll shift my support to the candidate who won the primaries and got the nomination. If that's Bernie Sanders, he'll have me as a strong supporter. Same thing if it's Hillary Clinton.

It looks pretty much like Clinton will get the nod, but anything can happen.

Party unity? You bet. I'll fall in behind the nominee, regardless. What other option is there, really?

[Kentonio]

82. I didn't say you were.

But if you read this place regularly, then you've certainly seen plenty of other people doing it.

As for what other option, there are plenty of people out there right now saying that if the party isn't going to represent them, then they'll sit back, watch it burn and then try to rebuild it in a shape that actually takes their beliefs into account. I'm not saying that's a good solution, but I struggle to criticize people for not wanting to vote for a party that doesn't care a damn about them and doesn't represent them. If the party gets their vote regardless, then what possible reason would the party ever have for changing?

[MineralMan]

85. That's why we have primaries. That's when we duke it out

and choose a nominee by voting. The system of selecting a nominee isn't going to change before this election. I don't buy the scorched earth concept of politics. I never have. Too many people suffer when that happens.

Our system is built for incremental change. It was designed that way. Continuity has always been valued in this country, with change happening in a more or less orderly way. We had our revolution a long time ago and came up with a new way of governing a nation. That way is still operating and we're having another of our national elections, like we do every four years.

There's always a minority that wants faster change and pushes for it. Such change rarely occurs.

[Kentonio]

89. If the primary is fair then the system works

If the DNC are already in bed with one of the candidates before anyone else has even entered the race, then the system stops working. I don't know any other way to see it. The division and disunity is largely sadly and predictably self inflicted.

[MineralMan]

93. I'm afraid that is a minority opinion, though.

Our system is based on majorities making decisions. Now, you may not like that way of doing things, but it is how we do them.

If you can change the opinion of the majority, on a party level, then something else might happen. That's far from easy to do, though, and may well require a more effective candidate to accomplish. I don't think that Bernie Sanders can make that happen. His range of issues is too narrow, really, given people's current concerns in general.

It's a huge, complex population we have here. Barack Obama got their attention and got elected. He wasn't able to pull along enough people in Congress to get done what he envisioned, sadly. It's a complex system we used to run our government, and that's by design. It's not a system that makes major changes easily. That's by design, too.

Is it the best system? I don't really know. I'm not capable of redesigning it in a way that would be sure to be successful or equitable. Not even close. Despite my interest in government and social systems, I have no illusions of being able to create a system for a nation as large and diverse as ours. I do the best I can within the system that exists.

Maybe you have a better idea. I don't know. I do know that 2016 will happen based on the current system, though. I'd like to get the best possible result from this election. Since I'm 70 years old, I doubt I will see any major changes in the system, and certainly don't have the energy or power to alter it in any significant way.

[AgingAmerican]

99. A majority of one: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The most corrupt Democrat in the last 50 years.

[MineralMan]

100. No, not really.

Do you have any idea how few Americans even know who she is? We do, because we're political wonks. But wonkery doesn't decide who the candidates will be. Voters do. I get one vote. You get one vote. Joe down at the tavern gets one, as does everyone else who bothers to go to the polls.

The head of the DNC doesn't decide. People decide, and most of them have never heard of her.

[AgingAmerican]

106. "Her corrupt actions on behalf of the Clinton campaign are not relevant"

"Cuz relatively few know what she did"

Or something to that effect...

Person A commits corrupt acts
Person B is unaware of said corrupt acts, which go unreported by a corrupt MSM, thus aforementioned corruption is irrelevant

Person C is coronated

[MineralMan]

107. We don't have coronations here. Sorry.

We have inaugurations, following elections. Don't try to convince me. Get out there and convince people who aren't on DU. This is not the group that decides who wins elections. Not even close.

[AgingAmerican]

108. So you agree with my basic premise.

Which I note you fail to address in your reply.

[Kentonio]

101. Answer me this..

How in gods name is his range of issues too narrow?! He's running on universal healthcare, reformation of the campaign finance system, raising minimum wage, regulating wall st, breaking up the giant banks, reforming the police and establishing a radically new foreign policy. Narrow? I don't remember another candidate in my lifetime who is calling for a wider range of radical changes.

[MineralMan]

102. Everyone has a position on all of those issues.

Bernie has his. Hillary has hers. The GOP clown car has a wide range of crazy positions.

Bernie has a stump speech. I've heard it several times. It's OK. He'd be fine as President. Much of what he's calling for won't happen. Much of what any candidate calls for won't happen. But, he has to get elected, and that's going to depend on what a helluva lot of people decide to vote for.

It's not looking strong for Bernie right now, I'm afraid. He has a very small window in which to sell his candidacy to the public, and that window is getting smaller every day.

He has strong competition from Hillary. Very strong. Right now, she's demonstrably in the lead. Unless she screws up badly, she'll probably be the nominee. She has a stump speech, too. It's OK. But, she's better known and pretty well liked. If she doesn't slip badly, she'll probably win the nomination.

I'm OK either way, and will be supporting the nominee for the general election.

[Kentonio]

103. I'm not seeing a window closing.

Everything hangs on Iowa right now and the picture coming out of Iowa is looking very promising indeed.

[MineralMan]

105. We'll know the answer from Iowa in less than a month.

It'll be interesting, I think. I don't vote in Iowa, though, so I'm just an observer. My activism is in Minnesota, and it's targeted on legislative offices. I don't do presidential primary campaigns.

[PyaarRevolution]

92. If I remember correctly.

Jefferson or Washington believed in having a revolution every 20 years to prevent us from becoming stuck in the mud I suspect. In this respect I disagree with you that continuity has always been valued since one of our Founding Fathers disagreed with that sentiment.

[MineralMan]

96. Perhaps that's true. At this point, the inertia of our

existing system resists major changes very effectively. With over 300 million people and 50 very diverse states, it's a system that is functioning at least. I'm not sure what changes would make it work better and still be as equitable as possible.

I'm not that good at designing systems as complex as what is required for this country. Not competent at all in that way. I work within the system that exists. It's not going to change in 2016. Of that I'm certain. I hope for the best outcome, given the system, and that's what I'll be working for. Right now, we're engaged in choosing a presidential candidate, within the system that exists.

That will soon enough be decided. Then, I'll turn my attention to the next step in the process. In fact, I'm already doing that by getting ready for a general election campaign for the Democratic candidate and whatever legislative races I can work on.

I guess I'm a small picture sort of guy, really.

[Gothmog]

87. That means that Sanders would have to expand his appeal beyond the narrow demographic

Sanders is only polling well in four states. To win the Democratic nomination, Sanders needs to expand his appeal beyond a very narrow demographic base that is currently supporting him. There are no signs that this is happening

[Kentonio]

90. There is very little up to date polling data on most of the states at the present time

It's also worth noting that his entire campaign strategy is built around building momentum on early victories.

As for a very narrow demographic, his support is growing in AA and Latino communities, he has great support across all age groups other than the over 60's (and his support there is building too) and he has a good support across both genders. I'm really not sure what is supposed to be so 'narrow' about it.

[PyaarRevolution]

94. 50 State strategy.

Sanders has said or implied a 50 State strategy so he's not counting any state out, father of Kellith. He wants to fight for every state and believes his platform appeals to most people in all states of this nation. I'm inclined to agree. His platform isn't radical, his tax plan would likely be considered too low on the rich to Dwight Eisenhower.

[AgingAmerican]

98. Unless Debbie Wasserman Schultz strikes the match...

in which case it not silly, but somehow necessary!1!!

[mcar]

26. Sure because the poor don't need food

Children don't need education and the elderly don't need SS or Medicare.

That'll show 'em.

[PyaarRevolution]

95. You forget.

We don't need child labor laws(that goes to the Republicans, not Hillary).

[NCTraveler]

60. I believe there are a whole lot of people going with Sanders...

Who believe just that.

[DFW]

86. I'm with John Lennon

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out

from "revolution"

[Hekate]

113. Is this a joke?

[tecelote]

3. If you say so.

Over a million Bernie donors disagree.

But, hey, It's just your opinion.

The more you try to discourage us, the better. America loves the underdog. Especially the one fighting the Oligarchy.

[MineralMan]

8. Over a million in a nation of about 320 million?

Think about it. that's less than a third of a percent.

Bernie will do better than that, of course, but half of this country is way farther to the right. If we are divided, it won't be the liberal side that wins. I guarantee it. People still vote here. We still have elections. The party that wins rules.

I'm sorry to disappoint you.

[HerbChestnut]

11. Reached 1 million donors faster than Obama in 2008

Just a little perspective

[tecelote]

17. Thanks.

The need to minimize Bernie shows the point of desperation being achieved.

Since the corporate media have all donated to Hillary, we know who they want to win.

Watching Bernie being sworn in will be an incredible victory.

[PyaarRevolution]

97. Industry endorsements.

Look at the list of people who have endorsed Hillary, at least listed on Wikipedia. Many of the Hollywood people listed there are CEO's of the big companies.
I would like to see America Ferrara change her mind to Bernie. I wonder if she has truly looked at Bernie's platform. I can't believe anyone who sees the big picture on Bernie from all angles and grew up in the middle or lower class would support Hillary. You note I say big picture...issues, media treatment, presence on internet et al, etc. Looking at only a few of these they might still stand firm but to see the entire collection, the only thing left is fear Bernie can't win in the general election. I think the primaries and the number of new, registered Democrats who were once Republicans or Independents will sweep.
I haven't even mentioned the youth vote which the polls don't take into account as you must have voted twice in the Presidential election before to even come up for some of those polls. I remember Thom talking about this.
Bernie gets young people energized. Though I didn't grow up during this time, I imagine some of the response is due to having a dog in the fight like the draft for Vietnam. In this case it is crushing Student loan debt. Hillary has a solution, she says debt-free tuition. I ask what that means. Seriously people, I want you to give me a link of how Hillary and Martin O'Malley plan to do this logistically. Is it going to be like Oregon where you just pay a percentage of your income for the rest of your life or something else?

[anigbrowl]

52. Which is just what you would expect given the rise of Facebook, Twitter etc.

Social networking and online fundraising has advanced a great deal over the last 8 years, not least thanks to the widespread adoption of smart phones and tablets. It would be surprising if this were not reflected in political campaigns. Bernie may or may not be more popular than Obama on his presidential run, but it's hard to say whether this is the case without weighting for the larger trend.

[pangaia]

4. You are absolutely 100% right.

The revolution will start in January 2017.

[jonno99]

6. Chuckles!

[Gregorian]

7. History begs to differ with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1800

In what is sometimes referred to as the "Revolution of 1800,"[1][2] Vice President Thomas Jefferson defeated President John Adams.

[MineralMan]

10. This was a very different place 215 years ago.

More different than you probably even believe.

[tecelote]

18. "More different than you probably even believe."

Don't you love it when you're told how ignorant you are?

[daleanime]

9. The 'sad truth' is....

we already have republican control, that's what we're trying to change.

[MineralMan]

13. Be very careful not to give them even more control, then.

You will not like the results.

[sadoldgirl]

12. You cannot have it both ways, sorry

First you appeal for Duers to make peace,
and now you throw out an indirect threat.

This election will be different, because people
are mad at both parties and have no trust in
anyone in DC.

But, we will see, and I won't be intimidated
anymore by the usual threats.

[MineralMan]

14. Not enough people feel that way, actually.

You will be surprised, I think.

[enid602]

40. world

I wonder what world they live in. The one where Kentuckians just voted in a Tea Party Governor? Where Louisiana JUST BARELY voted in a very conservative democrat, and only because the Tea Party guy was caught with a prostitute, wearing diapers? Where Venezuela just toppled the socialists? Where Argentina just elected a right wing president? Where the Right Wing is on the rise in Spain, France and Germany?

[Bluenorthwest]

66. In the world I live in Kentucky went 60% for Mitt and the US did not. Louisiana was 58% Mitt

I'm pretty happy with Canada's change of leadership, and last time the right wing was on the rise in Spain, France and Germany the US kept electing FDR. But your theory is that Kentucky votes like the US and that when Germany goes to the right the US elects conservatives?

[enid602]

70. Franco vs Hitler vs FDR vs Bernie

I'm not yet convinced by Trudeau. He did not stop Montreal from dumping 9 billion liters of raw sewage into the St Lawrence River in December, despite a petition signed by hundreds of thousands of US citizens and intense diplomatic pressure from Obama. Thanks to the lobbying efforts of Canadian farmers, country of origin labeling is banned on all meats sold in the US effective 1/1/16. As soon as the artificially low price of oil normalizes, I have no doubt that Canada will resume with Tar Sands Development. He does have a cool tattoo, though, and his mother was a frequent habitué of discoteques.

The Spanish Civil War was essentially a war between Germany and the USSR. Franco was never elected, I don't think. Hitler came to power at the apex of liberalness in Berlin. Don't forget that his was the party of national socialism (hence, the word Nazi), giving him a certain populist appeal. Important to note, so we don't underestimate tRump in these interesting times.

We were lucky to have FDR during the rise of fascism, but one should remember that he was successful in the 1930's for two reasons:

The national debt was only 10% of a very small GDP in 1930. FDR's tremendously successful programs were not free, and
the national debt grew to 70% of GDP by the start of WWII. He brought the vast majority of Americans out of poverty during
that time, so it was well worth the expense.

The markets at the beginning of FDR's first administration were totally trashed. The number of have nots far outnumbered the
the haves. Most of the haves had lost everything. Few people were working. Countries were not trading. The stock market
was in an abyss. No one had a stake in the status quo, and most had nothing to lose.

Thanks to Obama's averting another Great Depression, we don't have the same situation here in the US. Our national debt is currently at 65% percent of GDP, meaning that there is no ability to pay for Bernie's ambitious agenda, unless he drastically cuts military spending or renigs on US debt. I haven't heard him propose either.

Remember, a drastic increase in spending without ability to pay for it is inflationary. A couple of points increase in inflation not only hurts the people who are supposed to benefit from these proposed programs, but will increase the interest we have to pay on our national debt. The debt is financed by Treasury Bonds. Although T Bills have maturity dates between 3 days and 30 years, the average maturity rate is 60 days. That means we must essentially refinance 18 to 20 trillion dollars every other month. If the interest rate were to go up just a couple of points, any talk of domestic vs military spending would be moot, as the vast majority of tax receipts would be needed just to pay interest on the debt.

[Kentonio]

73. "Hitler came to power at the apex of liberalness in Berlin"

No, just no..

Hitler came to power in a society struggling with an imposed democratic system that was viciously divided between (often literally) warring factions, an economy that was utterly crushed by post war reparations exacerbated by the great depression, and foreign nations imposing post war conditions on the country that allowed him to invoke strong nationalistic fervour.

The only way you could really describe Berlin as 'at the apex of liberalness' is if you consider chaos and governmental anarchy to be particularly liberal.

[enid602]

75. Germany

I was thinking more of 'Gay Berlin' of the 1920's. Really an incredibly liberal time in the city. The advances in the arts, medicine, universities, etc. You're right; the combination of the brutal reparations that followed the Versailles Treaty and the weight of the Depression probably doomed the government, and the people were sitting ducks for Hitler. I still think it's important to see that there was the populist aspect of Hitler's rise.

[Kentonio]

78. Definitely populist and I agree it's very important to remember

I think the lesson I'd take from it though is about the dangers of allowing a rise in populism based on hate, nationalism and the manufactured fear of 'others'. The Trump effect in other words.

[PyaarRevolution]

104. Stirring the pot.

I think dissatisfaction has been brewing since the first election of Obama from various factions. People didn't get the "Hope and Change" that he promised. Some of the same people actually find themselves getting back out there and are hopeful about Bernie because he has a record, it's not like Obama when he was such an unknown.
Frankly I agree with the sentiment "I want my country back" but not from a Black man, from Oligarchs.

edit: I forgot to add there is always a group of people on the inside looking out who never see the problem because they're in a bubble. I mean I could've told you that GM was heading towards financial problems based on how well the Hybrids were selling. I'm still flabbergasted they had no Plan B just in case. Heck they created the EV-1 as a countermeasure when California passed stricter mileage or emission standards at that one point.
My point being is it's starting to get the boiling point and if it honestly doesn't happen in 2016 it will happen in 2020. That is if Hillary doesn't enact Bernie's reforms.

[leveymg]

15. The revolution will not be televised. Not on Channel MM, anyway.

[Rebkeh]

16. Perhaps not by the way you define the term but

the primary definitely is about bringing in new ideas, a new way of doing things. It's the very reason we have limited terms in this country.

As for revolution, it's already underway and has been for years, some could argue since the 60's. Maybe even before then, or since 2008. It depends on your frame of reference, really. In any case, this time now is a turning point, it's up to us to decide what the impact of it shall be.

[ljm2002]

19. MM has spoken...

...time for the rest of us to fall in line.

Hey MM, I've got an idea: why not save the pronouncements of How It Is until after at least a few primary votes have been cast? Just a thought.

[MineralMan]

22. I really don't care what you do.

As for pronouncements, I'll continue to write what I see and expect. I'll continue to promote electing Democrats to office and defeating Republicans. You will do what you wish. We all will, really.

I have a voice. I will speak.

[ljm2002]

34. Hey, like I said...

...just a thought.

I do find it amusing, though, that you pen an OP claiming to wish for peace between the factions on this site, and then follow up with another subtly sh*t-stirring post.

Maybe we're ready for a political revolution and maybe we aren't. You don't seem very tuned in to the anger that is out there. That's okay, of course, we all have our views and things that appeal to us or not. But your behavior on the board is a bit schizoid.

Yes, you have a voice. More than one, it would appear.

[99th_Monkey]

20. "There will be no revolution" <-- Laying claim to perfect knowledge of the future = arrogance. nt

[MineralMan]

23. Am I arrogant? Perhaps I am.

Will I be correct? That remains to be seen.

[cali]

21. Revolutions are rarely instantaneous and they certainly aren't static

They are often difficult to identify in their early days.

[MineralMan]

24. That's quite true, of course.

2016 will not be the beginning of an actual revolution, however, I think. Instead, it will be yet another presidential election year that follows our history of having such elections. The election will take place, as usual, and the party that wins will be in control until the next one. What we do in 2016 will determine which party that is.

It's not a difficult prediction to make, really.

[cali]

39. Lol. There is no way that you can know that, min.

[baldguy]

25. Of course there will be people who say "Yes it is!" or "It's about time it should be!"

They can shout from the rooftops that they're Democrats, but they don't want to dirty themselves with democracy.

These people are not Democrats. They are not interested in seeing Democratic candidates win elections. And they are perfectly happy to see the people suffer under GOP rule, as long as they can claim ideological purity for themselves.

[MineralMan]

27. A few might feel that way. Not most, I think.

There's a lot of confirmation bias at work right now, especially on websites like this one. Many people are seeing their thoughts reinforced and are mistakenly believing that their beliefs are general, rather than specific to a small minority of people who have the franchise in this country.

There is some unity in this country, but it is mostly on the right side of the center. That's why so many state legislatures are controlled by the Republicans. That's why we lose in mid-term elections. The Republicans have built a large contingency of fearful people who are easily swayed to vote in specific ways.

We do not have that on the Democratic side. More's the pity.

The 2016 election could go to the Republicans very, very easily. More easily than many believe. There is a high risk of that this year, and the consequences would be far worse than many recognize.

That's my fear. It's a real one.

[baldguy]

46. That's my fear too - a replay of the 2000 coup d'etat.

Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 05:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Republicans can only win if the people who want them out of power don't vote from Democrats. Republicans do this by sewing dissension among Democrats, obfuscating the truth, and sapping support from Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party.

They don't play nice.

The only way we can beat them - especially when the deck is stacked against us - is by overwhelming them.

[My Good Babushka]

28. Many don't see it as "revolutionary" to have a liberal progressive candidate

who actually has a liberal progressive platform. A moderate increase in democratic socialist principles is not extreme, in the least. What I hear are a lot of democrats saying we just have to be "pragmatic" and move closer to the right, like they always do. Labor and working class issues, the standard of living of the working class, will have to go pound sand for another term.

[MineralMan]

29. There was another period when people falsely believed

they were seeing the beginning of a revolution. I was around then, too. In 1968, this nation elected Richard Milhous Nixon as President. They re-elected him. Then, they managed to elect Jimmy Carter, but followed that by electing Ronald Reagan for two terms. The revolutionary promise of the late 1960s ended with a nation dominated by Republican administrations.

The revolution did not occur. It did not happen. Some of us saw what did happen. Now, a similar sense is running through this primary season. Some people believe that there will be revolutionary change. Confirmation bias informs this "revolution." Reality says something completely different.

Anyone who thinks that a Republican of the sort of Cruz cannot win the presidency has either forgotten or fails to recognize what happened in 1968. Some of us, including myself, thought we were on the verge of a revolution then, too. We were wrong, and paid dearly for our wrong beliefs.

We can defeat the Republicans, but not through fighting among ourselves. That won't work. That never works. If we fail to understand that, we will have a Ted Cruz as President, or someone like him. Republicans will vote for him. If we don't vote in larger numbers, he or someone like him will be President and drag Congress down the chute with him.

I don't find that acceptable. If you're of a revolutionary bent, and refuse to participate in what you think is a useless election, beware. Remember Richard Nixon. Remember Ronald Reagan. Magnify those two by a regressive factor of 2 and that's what is likely to happen. I won't live long enough to be materially affected by that. Perhaps you and others you love will, however.

Don't mistake zeal for change with inevitability of change. The change you see may not be the change you prefer. That's my advice.

[jeff47]

57. So you are fighting with other Democrats about how terrible it is

to fight with other Democrats.

As usual MM, you have such a coherent argument in your sophistry.

[INdemo]

30. I diagree

You know Obama had the strength behind him to make real changes but he allowed his obligations to those that supported his PACs take over and instead we got an Obama cabinet filled with former Wall St cronies and Goldman Sachs employees.
His "Change we can believe in" became a change that he decided was in his best interests.

Bernie Sanders can bring about this Revolution. He has the People behind him and he can bring about change.
He may not be able to bring to Washington all the Progressive Congress he needs the first two years but he will change Washington with a Progressive Majority and that my friend is the revolution Sanders is talking about.

With a progressive legislative agenda if the Republicans try to be another "Do nothing Congress"
Then those legislators will be replaced and there are those Republican Lite Democrats in that group also.

[MineralMan]

32. I can see that you disagree.

I'll be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is. I guarantee that. I know what the alternative is. I have voted for others who I did not believe could win. They did not win. We got Nixon and Reagan. I would like to win in 2016.

[INdemo]

44. So you are sure that Hillary will win with her baggage?

Many Democrats do not want another Clinton nor Bush.
14% of Democrats will stay away from the polls if Hillary wins the nomination.
And sad to say some Democrats will vote for Trump if he should be the nominee

So this places a lot of uncertainty on having a Democrat in the White House.
Not voting for Sanders in the primary because you dont think he can win..
Please check the polls with Sanders vs prospective Republican nominees.

[mhatrw]

31. because you say so?

Thanks, dad!

[MineralMan]

35. Yes. You can listen or not. That's your choice.

All I can do is write what I think. I will be continuing to do that, since it is my privilege to do so here.

[mhatrw]

49. Listen to what? The naysaying of a historic opportunity to support a candidate

with whom I actually agree with on 95%+ of the issues?

Why? Because dad says that's just not the way it works? Because dad says Democratic primaries are just not about supporting the candidates we agree with on the issues? Because dad thinks Democratic primaries can only coronate establishment candidates bought by the top 1%?

Sorry, dad, but I find your naysaying wholly unhelpful. If the Democrat primary concludes by nominating Hillary Clinton, the most hated candidate imaginable among both independents and Republicans, the Democrats will cede both legislative branches and the executive branch of the federal government to the Repukes. Nobody wants more of the same, and that's exactly what Hillary is.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

33. Are you happy about that being the situation???

sounds like you are

[MineralMan]

36. Why would you think that?

Of course not, but I'm not in any position to decide who is elected. I have one vote. I'll be voting for the Democrat, as always, in hopes of winning. I hope everyone will join me. If not, then I think we will lose.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

38. good to hear you say that

be well

[kentuck]

37. My question is:

What is "revolutionary"?

[MineralMan]

42. That's defined somewhat differently by each person

who uses the word. I don't have a universal definition. However, for me, it means sweeping change that has a major impact on how things function in government. I'm not seeing that for 2016 or the four years after that, frankly

I don't think it's in the cards. 2016 will be very much like other recent elections. We'll get a Bush or a Democrat, but that's about it. Things will go on much as they have. No revolution.

[MeNMyVolt]

43. Once again I find myself recommending an MM OP.

Not so much for the OP, but for your thoughtful replies.

[Bleacher Creature]

45. You are a brave soul.

You also are absolutely, 100% correct - and the fact that people can't recognize it in light of our experiences during the last 8 years is kind of sad - but brave nonetheless.

Anyone who thinks one guy, particularly one who has spent 30 years alienating potential allies, is going to start a revolution powerful enough to counteract Republican control of Congress and far too many states is in for a rude awakening.

[Hoyt]

47. The problem with "revolution" is that it's not at all a sure bet Sanders will come out ahead or

that the poorest will be better off.

[sadoldgirl]

48. No, 2016 will be different from what I have seen

from the Goldwater/LBJ election onwards.

Never ever have I seen during that time someone
like Trump getting to be on top of the repugs' polls.

And that is their primary as well.Yes, I realize the
danger of a Cruz, but even he is worse than
anything I have seen before,in spite of him
trying to hide it.

You may not want to call it a revolution, but the
mood in the country is so ugly as I have never
seen it before. And that includes the sixties.

[GeorgeGist]

50. So if the Democratic primaries don't turn out your way ...

the Republicans win.

Got it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. Spot on.

There are three candidates left in the Democratic primary. Clinton and O'Malley are both more likely to lose than to win, but Sanders is nearly certain to lose.

He's polling OK in matchups at the moment solely because the Republicans have been almost wholly ignoring him and concentrating their firepower on Clinton (which should tell you something about who they're more afraid of), but if by some implausible catastrophe he were to win the nomination, the incessant drumbeat of "self-proclaimed socialist" from now to the election would annihilate him.

Yes, if elected Sanders would make a perfectly good president. But as a candidate, he'd be a disaster.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. Depends on how you define "revolution."

A revolution is simply "a fundamental change in political power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time when the population rises up in revolt against the current authorities." It doesn't have to involve guillotines or storming the Bastille or the murdering of czars or any sort of armed conflict. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union is an example of a relatively peaceful revolution. The transition to democracy in Spain after the death of Franco is another. While the Democratic primary itself may not constitute a revolution as usually defined, the increasing popularity of Bernie Sanders and the principles he advocates may be a harbinger of a peaceful revolution in which the United States is actually governed by the people and not the 1%.

[Matariki]

53. Getting Debbie Do-Nothing out of the DNC might help

with getting control of two or three of those branches of government back

[Live and Learn]

55. Political revolution and of course they are. And this year will be a biggie. nt

[Punkingal]

56. Ever hear of the Reagan revolution?

Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 11:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Things are worse now than they were then.

[randome]

61. The Reagan Revolution had people loudly protesting.

We see very little of that on the Democratic side. For a little while we had OWS but now that's more of a social aid group.

I keep hearing about how one candidate or the other is going to 'save' us. I'm hardly of the mind that we need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps or that we need to make things worse in order for the people to 'rise up'. But without a concerted and loud protest movement by non-politicians, there will be no revolution.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Punkingal]

64. The Reagan Revolution occurred at the Ballot Box.

[randome]

65. They were better organized. Democrats, by nature, encourage different points of view.

Which makes it harder to organize. Reagan did not come up with the idea of trickle-down on his own. He was encouraged to it by a hoard of like-minded -and greedy- Conservative voters and by an array of aides. That was the crux of his revolution. It was more of a grass-roots effort than we see today. (Crab grass but still...)

Where is the similar organization from the Progressive side? I don't see it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Punkingal]

67. He capitalized on the hostage crisis, high gas prices, and blowing smoke about "Morning in America."

He stayed on a message people wanted to hear. I don't know where you were, but he had a message that resonated and he had a lot of cross-over votes. I hated him, and still do, but it was a Revolution. A much as I hated it.

[Armstead]

68. Been sleeping?

There weren't Republicans marching in the streets to elect Reagan. It was a political process (a dirty one, but still political within the system).

What do you think the Sanders campaign is about? It is a large clamoring for change that has caught everyone by surprise.

And in addition to the awful "commie San ders supporters" there are many many democrats who say things like "I believe in Bernie and his message, but I have to vote for Clinton because she is more 'electable.' "

Tghere uis certainly fertile ground for an equivalent revolution ion the left if the Democratic Party doesn't screw the pooch once again, and run (and govern) as conservative 'centrists.'

[Punkingal]

84. Thank you!

[elleng]

58. They may be, if a candidate wants to dramatize his candidacy that way.

Another may choose to call it New Leadership. https://martinomalley.com/

[NCTraveler]

62. They are a great place...

For living room revolutionaries. Happens every primary.

[AgingAmerican]

71. "Resistance is futile"

"You have been assimilated"

[Rosa Luxemburg]

76. It's about time people stood up to them

That means we have to move on kicking the GOP out of congress and not replacing them with Blue Dogs.

[Gothmog]

83. There has been no signs of this revolution in the pollings

So far Sanders is only polling well in four states with 90+% white voting populations. That is not a revolution

[MineralMan]

88. That's true, and the time is growing short for a big shift.

I doubt it will happen. The numbers of people demanding it just aren't there. At least, I'm not seeing them reflected in public opinion. It looks to me like this will be another election that produces only minor changes from the current path in terms of who is nominated as a Democrat. The Republican side looks very different, though, and it's more than a little scary. I doubt that Trump will be the nominee, but when I look at the other candidates with significant support, it looks even scarier.

I can't imagine a President Cruz, to tell you the truth. That man is batshit crazy. It looks to me like we'll end up holding on, just barely, to what we've had for the past 8 years. Not optimal, but at least safer than giving the GOOPers the keys to the White House.

[Gothmog]

109. The revolution that is contemplated would show up in polling

The massive change in the electorate necessary to accomplish Sanders' revolution would show up in the polling.

[MineralMan]

110. Yes, and it does not show up.

Confirmation bias is hard at work, convincing some that they represent a larger segment of the population than they actually do. Elections don't work that way. Even people who don't follow political news at all vote in large numbers. The polls reflect that, too.

[MineralMan]

111. This Just In: Television Coverage of the Democratic Revolution

Has Been Postponed Indefinitely.

Oh, wait...that's the headline for March 2, 2016. Sorry. I jumped the gun.

[Hekate]

112. Some people have their fingers stuck in their ears.

>sigh<

[wildeyed]

114. The whole point of democracy

is to NOT have revolutions.