Do some people here realize that Paul Ryan is the Speaker of the House?

[Yavin4]

And will continue as speaker after this election in the fall, right? Also, Ryan, and the Republicans in the House, are entrenched politically. They're not losing their majority soon. So, whatever plan or agenda the next president will have it has to getthem to come up for a vote in the House in order for it to become law, right.

I haven't gotten to the Senate yet where even more obstacles abound.

[TCJ70]

1. Yep, which is why Bernie is so important...

...to working towards changing that. That's really the centerpiece of his whole campaign. Wake people up to the possibilities and who is working against them, then change it.

[Yavin4]

3. So, if nothing moves forward nor happens while Bernie is president...

then what?

[TCJ70]

5. Then he failed to keep his campaigns momentum...

...and a great opportunity will have been missed. Given his current level of commitment, I'd much rather have him up there calling out the crap that goes on. Your own post underscores Bernie's message: Get involved, stay involved, change Washington. Hillary seems all too willing to ignore the reality you're expressing in your OP. Wouldn't it be better to have someone there who recognizes it?

[Yavin4]

6. So, you're okay with nothing happening at all vs. something positive happening? n/t

[TCJ70]

7. I don't think Hillary has any more...

...chance to get things done than Bernie. She keeps saying she'll get things done but never answers how, as evidenced in last nights debate.

To answer your question, I don't expect much to get done in Bernies first term.

[leftofcool]

8. Because Democrats in the House and Senate support her.

They don't support Bernie.

[UglyGreed]

11. Hillary will be able to what she

wants since she is a progressive who gets things done. If the Republican God forbid win Hillary tells us that they will do whatever they want. But when it comes to Bernie he will never be able to do anything at all. Truly some amazing stuff right there!!!!

[TCJ70]

20. It's amazing...

...that someone would want to elect a candidate ready to roll over on Republican demands vs someone who would call them out on their BS. Especially when they'll both face the same difficulties.

[UglyGreed]

21. I just wonder why they

feel Bernie would be basically powerless yet the others would yield a tremendous amount of clout

[arcane1]

2. I think everyone here is aware of that n/t

[immoderate]

4. How's that different from having "nobody" as Speaker of the House?

--imm

[thesquanderer]

9. The only choices are "Try" or "Give Up."

We have to at least start moving the conversation. And maybe Bernie's coattails can yield a slightly more amenable congress... if not in 2016, then, if he continues to motivate his base, in 2018.

Meanwhile, the odds that HRC will get anything of comparable significance done? Even less... because she won't even try. And we'll have missed out on 4 or 8 years of even beginning to move the conversation.

[Yavin4]

10. What's your definition of "Try"?

If by "Try", do you mean make compromises with Ryan to get something done? Or by "Try", you mean be obstinate with Ryan and have a total impasse on any domestic legislation.

[thesquanderer]

12. By "Try" I mean elect someone like Sanders instead of Clinton.

Clinton is the equivalent of giving up, she won't even try to do more than tinker around the edges. Sanders will at least try. If he accomplishes nothing with the 2016 congress, he has the potential to further shift the congress in 2018 (and 2020, and 2022). And at least we'll be having the right conversations. As the cliche goes, every long journey begins with a first step. Hillary is not ready to take that step.

[Yavin4]

14. So, it's really not about getting anything done.

It's about stopping Hillary.

[thesquanderer]

16. You have it backwards.

Voting for Hillary means (to many of us) getting nothing of significance done (she's just tinkering around the edges).

Voting for Bernie means there's a *chance* of achieving much more substantial change... if not with the 2016 congress, than with the 2018, 2020, or 2022 congress.

Even if he only accomplishes a small amount of what he'd like to do, it's a step, and moves the conversation. If you don't start SOMEWHERE you never get ANYWHERE.

[TCJ70]

22. You aren't playing the long game...

...Sanders is the only one addressing the actual roadblock to getting anything done: congress. He's been quite clear that it needs to change, hence in the debate he chose campaign finance reform, as a first important issue. Pick any other issue and it all comes back to changing how our politics run. Hillary won't take the steps necessary, and in fact has denied the influence of money in politics, to get things done in the future.

[Armstead]

32. Nice little game of three card mointy you just played there

[FBaggins]

13. Are you aware that a presidential term lasts four years?

Or that the next congressional election will be impacted by the public's view of the conflicts with the White House?

[Matariki]

15. Do people here realize that EVERY SEAT in the house is up for election?

And we have the power to change who is Speaker of the House.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Do you understand what happened in 2010? Does the word gerrymanded mean anything to you....

Its like this map of each district in the US, redrawn in weird ass ways to ensure that there are enough district drawn in a way that insures a Republican majority in the house. Many laughed at some of the mapping as it was like a tiny square at the top narrowly winding its way to the left only to zigzag back into a little circle.

So let's say Sanders' "revolution" means more people come out and vote...
The mapping drawn by Republicans make sure that various neighborhood that are overwhelming Republican
have nearly no democratic voters in them. The additional votes to turn that district from
red to blue do not exist in said district. That's why 2010 was so important.


ger·ry·man·der
[ˈjerēˌmandər]
VERB
manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.
achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency:
"a total freedom to gerrymander the results they want"

Gerrymandering,
“The Gerry-mander,” political cartoon [Credit: © North Wind Picture Archives]in U.S. politics, drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one party an unfair advantage over its rivals. The term is derived from the name of Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, whose administration enacted a law in 1812 defining new state senatorial districts. The law consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans. The outline of one of these districts was thought to resemble a salamander. A satirical cartoon by Elkanah Tisdale appeared in the Boston Gazette; it graphically transformed the districts into a fabulous animal, “The Gerry-mander,” fixing the term in the popular imagination.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/gerrymandering

its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts."

The 2012 election provides a number of examples as to how partisan gerrymandering can adversely affect the descriptive function of states' congressional delegations. In Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives received 83,000 more votes than Republican candidates, yet the Republican-controlled redistricting process in 2010 resulted in Democrats losing to their Republican counterparts in 13 out of Pennsylvania’s 18 districts.[20]

In the seven states where Republicans had complete control over the redistricting process, Republican House candidates received 16.7 million votes and Democratic House candidates received 16.4 million votes. The redistricting resulted in Republican victories in 73 out of the 107 affected seats; in those 7 states, Republicans received 50.4% of the votes but won in over 68% of the congressional districts.[21] While it is but one example of how gerrymandering can have a significant impact on election outcomes, this kind of disproportional representation of the public will seems to be problematic for the legitimacy of democratic systems, regardless of one's political affiliation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

[Matariki]

27. So let's just throw up our hands and resign ourselves to eternal Republican rule?

Is that your solution?

Or perhaps vote in the candidate who's (real) platform is closest to the Republicans in hopes that maybe *something* will get done?

Sounds like a winning strategy

[Matariki]

17. Also

There are 34 seats up in 2016, of which 24 are held by Republicans. Democrats will need to gain 4 or 5 seats to take control.


http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/

[mmonk]

18. Absolutely. That is why I don't want anymore of their ideology

in any f*cking deals in Wall Street driven economics. That is exactly why I'm voting for Bernie.

[elias49]

19. It seems as though people DO realize Ryan is Speaker.

Anything else?

[last1standing]

23. That's why we have to make sure NoHope Hillary never reaches the White House.

The last thing we want are her "compromises" on TPP, Keystone XL, and Social Security.

[Odin2005]

25. Hillary will capitulate to the GOP and call it "compromise".

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. So what you're saying...

is that it doesn't matter how 'unicorny' Bernie's ideas are, because Hillary isn't going to get anything passed either? Ya, we know.

[saltpoint]

28. Well I knew he had a dish washing

gig someplace. They say he's quite dutiful in the kitchen.

So he has another job on top of that?

[DonCoquixote]

29. I hope to be wrong

but if bernie or Hillary get elected, I predict some "terrorist" incident will somehow take them and the veep out. Anyone want to imagine Paul Ryan with emergency powers?

[thesquanderer]

30. If you want a president who will cooperate with Paul Ryan and a Republican House...

...your only option is to vote for a Republican.

[Armstead]

31. Oh you mean Newt Gingtich is gone? Dang I must have been asleep

[workinclasszero]

33. Yes but as soon as the teahaddists get to know Bernie

they will be more than happy to implement his plans that they 1,000,000% oppose now.