USA Today: Bernie Sanders defied expectations with long-shot presidential campaign

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/11/bernie-sanders-defied-expectations-presidential-campaign/85694576/

Nicole Gaudiano, USA TODAY 12:41 p.m. EDT July 11, 2016

WASHINGTON — Who would have thought, just over a year ago, that a gruff septuagenarian with unruly hair and democratic socialist views would capture the imaginations of young people and support from more than 13 million voters in a long-shot bid for the presidency?

Bernie Sanders was at least 50 points behind Hillary Clinton in some national polls when he announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in April 2015. But his call for a "political revolution" quickly gained momentum on social media, igniting a "feel the Bern" fever that ultimately drew nearly 1.5 million people to his rallies and other events across the country.

Clinton’s nomination may indeed have been inevitable, but Sanders’ surprising star power made it seem much less so.

“He got a tiger by the tail,” said RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, which supported Sanders. “All of a sudden, he emerges on the scene and he became an immediate legend. People didn’t know who he was.”

FULL story and video at link.


Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks at a rally in Washington on June 9, 2016.
(Photo: Cliff Owen, AP)

[emulatorloo]

1. Thanks Steve. Kick and Rec n/t

[pangaia]

2. Bernie is a once in several lifetimes politician.

Will we ever see another?

[NurseJackie]

5. I hope you're right.

I'm not sure if we'll "ever see another" ... But, in the future, I prefer a candidate who avoids pie-in-the-sky promises without knowing how they'll be paid for. Someone who has realistic ideas and expectations and who knows how to find common ground (rather than an all-or-nothing approach) is something that I'll be looking for in the decades to come.

[TonyPDX]

18. You mean we should only aspire to the programs and country we can afford?

That fool JFK proposed landing a man [person] on the moon within a decade without knowing how it could be accomplished or paid for. Why have dreams when we can have "realistic expectations"?

[SkeleTim1968]

29. Being prgamatic doesn't mean you don't

want the programs . it means there's a better way to go about getting them implemented while minimizing creating hardship for the very people you're trying to help.

JFK chose to go to the moon to demonstrate America's ability to launch missiles. That's what the space race was all about.

[calimary]

33. Welcome to DU, SkeleTim1968.

Glad you're here. You make an EXCELLENT point that a lot of us share.

[ehrnst]

43. Yes! Otherwise, it's like the GOP 'aspiring' to repeal Obamacare 80+ times

and simply spinning their wheels and wasting time.

[RiverNoord]

66. Are they wasting time?

The keep the constant, seemingly absurd threat of repealing the ACA in the minds of progressives. They make it clear that they will go to absurd lengths to seek the implementation of their agenda. Do you suppose things like that have no impact on the thinking of progressives?

They do. They establish extremist barriers that figure prominently into our conception of what is and is not 'realistic' or achievable.

All of Sanders's goals were achievable. Just like the repeal of the ACA is achievable. Such things are achievable if the political landscape changes significantly, and such goals are tied to the intent to bring about the necessary changes. Such changes can happen. That's why we don't laugh off Donald Trump's obscene and seemingly absurd stated goals of blocking Muslim visitors to the United States and massive deportation of undocumented immigrants. They are absurd, certainly unconstitutional (at least with respect to the former), and yet we can't afford to dismiss them. And, in the meantime, candidate Trump makes it possible for political candidates to make openly 'white' racist statements again. While Bernie Sanders made it possible for political candidates to speak of single-payer health care, tuition-free secondary education and expansion of Social Security freely, without having to carefully condition every word.

Which of those achievements are of real, tangible benefit to American progressives?

[ehrnst]

70. Single payer was not. And there are other ways to get to Universal Coverage. (nt)

[SkeleTim1968]

101. You said

All of Sanders's goals were achievable. Just like the repeal of the ACA is achievable.

While it may be "achievable" by filling congressional seats It's not a wise move to make at this juncture.
People's livelihoods depend on these industries . Most of them are the 99%. Our health care is intertwined with capitalism which is why it's smarter to build off of the ACA by adding a public option and slowly change the system than it is to make a drastic change.

Passing legislation and just changing everything without an incremental plan to is bound to hurt a lot of people. There are unforeseen contingencies in most plans, and this is a huge undertaking.
We tried to fill the houses with Democrats in 2010 , many progressives refused to vote, voted third candidate, or voted Republican.

We have opponents. Yes, there are people who don't want universal health care , single payer or any other then what we have right now. They are happy with the devil they know or they are wealthy enough to afford great health insurance policies. They will do anything, they will say anything to prevent it from coming to fruition, and they are fantastic at swaying the general public. A general public that eats up cable news. Now that the corporate media are slowly being exposed as entities designed only for profits at the expense of people things are really starting to change. Thank you to places like DU.

Such things are achievable if the political landscape changes significantly, and such goals are tied to the intent to bring about the necessary changes. Such changes can happen. That's why we don't laugh off Donald Trump's obscene and seemingly absurd stated goals of blocking Muslim visitors to the United States and massive deportation of undocumented immigrants.

The Republicans began the cultural revolution with their "moral majority" back in the late 80s. Pat Buchanan gave his 'Cultural Revolution' speech in 88, I think.
It's taken them nearly 30 years and billions to build the into the racist, hunk of oligarchy we have today using organizations like ALEC,cable news, and talk radio.

While Bernie Sanders made it possible for political candidates to speak of single-payer health care, tuition-free secondary education and expansion of Social Security freely, without having to carefully condition every word.

We've been talking about all of these things for a long while. Too many fell for the Republican professionally crafted by corporate media. it was not so easy as to just look things up on the internet , the public was easier to fool. They couldn't talk about what they think, and still today most do not talk out loud about politics or go to public meetings and stand by the motto to never talk about politics or religion ( which I myself find as sort of an immaturity disguised as maturity for the purpose of avoiding uncomfortable discussion).

Imo, any revolution for Progressives started long ago with the election of Obama and a majority of Democrats in the Congress and Senate, not Senator Sanders. It's too bad that people gave up in 2010 and allowed the Republicans to create all the gridlock.

[Exilednight]

50. Pragmatism is just another way of saying

Don't try it, you might fail.

Great Presidents aren't pragmatic.

FDR was not pragmatic.
LBJ was not pragmatic.
Lincoln was not pragmatic.

You can't be pragmatic and achieve great things. I challenge anyone to name one great pragmatic President where they changed the landscape of this country.

[ehrnst]

71. Yes, LBJ was pragmatic. He lied about what Medicare would cost

because it never would have passed otherwise.

You can't do that now with the CBO.

[Exilednight]

81. There was nothing pragmatic about the civil rights bill.

[ehrnst]

84. Yes, he accomplished that - and he did it because he was able to work with people

He didn't dismiss those who disagreed with him.

He did it by building coalitions, and being very much a part of the establishment. He knew how to leverage the nation's grief to support Kennedy's stalled bill.

As the former Senate majority leader, he knew his way around Capitol Hill like few other presidents before him—and none since. You don't become Senate majority leader if your peers think that you are hard to work with.

He was no outsider, and that's why he was able to accomplish this.

[Exilednight]

92. He dismissed his entire party. He passed it by cracking

Heads and twisting arms.

There was nothing pragmatic about it, he did it through sheer force and intimidation. He also gave away the South and knew he had when he pushed it.

To think otherwise is revisionist history at best, ignorance at worse.

[ehrnst]

93. Actual history shows he had teams, that went out and talked to people

He didn't alienate people by dismissing those who didn't agree with him. That's how you get to be Speaker.

"As the former Senate majority leader, he knew his way around Capitol Hill like few other presidents before him—and none since. The best hope of moving the civil-rights bill from the House Rules Committee—whose segregationist chairman, Howard Smith of Virginia, had no intention of relinquishing it—was a procedure called a “discharge petition.” If a majority of House members sign a discharge petition, a bill is taken from the committee, to the chagrin of its chairman. Johnson made the petition his own personal crusade. Even Risen credits his zeal, noting that after receiving a list of 22 House members vulnerable to pressure on the petition, the president immediately ordered the White House switchboard to get them on the phone, wherever they could be found.

Johnson engaged an army of lieutenants—businessmen, civil-rights leaders, labor officials, journalists, and **allies on the Hill**—to go out and find votes for the discharge petition. He cut a deal that secured half a dozen votes from the Texas delegation. He showed Martin Luther King Jr. a list of uncommitted Republicans and, as Caro writes, “told King to work on them.” He directed one labor leader to “talk to every human you could,” saying, “if we fail on this, then we fail in everything.”

Yes, he threatened some, but he actually had friends on both sides - he didn't alienate them. He didn't "strongarm" Byrd, he had lunch with him.

"But Johnson and Byrd were old friends, and during an elaborate White House lunch they came to an understanding: if Johnson submitted a budget below $100 billion, Byrd would release the tax bill. Johnson then personally bullied department heads to reduce their appropriations requests, and delivered a budget of $97.9 billion. The Finance Committee passed the tax bill on January 23, 1964, with Byrd casting the deciding vote to allow a vote, then weighing in against the measure itself. The Senate passed the tax bill on February 7, mere days before the civil-rights bill cleared the House."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/

"Above all, Johnson was a compromiser, a broker, and a master of the art of the deal. His hands-on method of persuading other senators, with its sweet talk, threats, and exaggerated facial expressions and body language, became widely known as "the treatment."

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Lyndon_Johnson.htm

I hope that clarifies things for you.

[Exilednight]

98. So basically, if you don't threaten everyone then you're

Pragmatic?

Being non pragmatic doesn't mean you don't lean on people for support. Coalition's can be built, and big things achieved, but don't pretend like LBJ didn't alienate many people in Congress or the public at large.

There was nothing pragmatic about the civil rights bill. It was forced upon Congress by a procedural loophole and then enacted after LBJ used MLK and labor leaders to pressure Congress.

[kacekwl]

82. There's that PRAGMATIC WORD again.

[ehrnst]

75. And politicians get accused of broken promises when they don't deliver on "aspirations."

See also, mid-term elections 2010.

[TonyPDX]

99. An aspiration is not a promise. It's an aspiration.

And the Teabagger movement catalyzed the 2010 routing.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

31. Re: The "Pie-in-the-sky" talking point:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36719-we-don-t-have-the-money-is-a-filthy-lie

It amazes me that people refuse to see what's right in front of them.

[PatSeg]

32. Thank you

Saying we can't afford health care and education is insulting, especially with the obscene amount of money that goes to defense spending or corporate tax cuts and rebates. "Pie in the sky" is what republicans want us to believe. Democrats should know better.

[ehrnst]

72. Single payer in less than 10 years isn't possible politically or practically.

For many reasons - much like repaving all the roads in a city at one time isn't.

There are other ways to get to universal health care. There are countries in Europe that have universal coverage without single payer.

Incremental expansion of the ACA is the realistic way to get to universal coverage. Obama didn't get to marriage equality all at once.

When so many just stayed home in 2010 because Obama's "hope and change" wasn't all happening at once, we lost the House. Expectations of things that aren't possible right away can damage a movement.

“The civil-rights movement happened because there was civil disobedience, because people were willing to go to jail, because there were events like Bloody Sunday,” Obama told Stephanopoulos. “But it was also because the leadership of the movement consistently stayed open to the possibility of reconciliation, and sought to understand the views—even views that were appalling to them—of the other side.” Liberalism is a belief in radical change made through practical measures."

[PatSeg]

80. Real change tends to be incremental

and sadly requires more patience than a lot of liberals are willing to show. Medicare in 1965 was not nearly the program we know today. I do not know what the ACA will evolve into, but hopefully it can become more public and less private (profit oriented). Meanwhile, we have many models to learn from.

[ehrnst]

85. Same with Social Security. It has expanded and evolved, and it took multiple administrations. (nt)

[PatSeg]

91. We often take things for granted

and forget what it took to bring them about.

[pangaia]

41. Pie in the sky..

Come on. Work for it. Don't just copy and paste.

If Beethoven believed that garbage we never would have had the chance to hear the transition from the 3rd to 4th movement in his OP. 67. The first audience must have been stunned.

Nor the brilliant deceptive cadence about 8 minutes from the end of the Mahler 1st Symphony.

Nor "Der Erlkönig," either Goethe's or Schubert's.
Not ever had a chance to hear Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau sing it with Gerald Moore.

Nor would a 28 year old violinist have dared to play the Ernst "Last Rose of Summer," the 'Paganini 24th Caprice' and the Hubay "Carmen Fantasy" in the same round of an international violin competition!

Maybe read a little Dylan Thomas.

"All or nothing" is the only way to live a life.

[ehrnst]

45. And it's a way to lose an election, and then you really get nothing.

"All or nothing" thinking is not how you make real change. And not how you lead.

It's the difference between a protest and a movement. Look to the example of Black Lives Matter - they built coalitions, they listened, and they made change.

If Bernie's supporters want a movement, they have to do the work now that he is not the nominee, and not quit the minute that they don't get "all."

That will determine if the Sanders movement goes the way of Black Lives Matter, or Occupy Wall Street.

[LiberalLovinLug]

55. Some still do not understand what Sanders was doing

It was never "all or nothing" as proven by his endorsement today for Hillary. It was about enlightening the American people of the possibilities. Yes POSSIBILITIES. The richest democratic country in the world cannot even afford universal healthcare for its citizens. Or paid maternity leave? Its embarrassing.

Bernie's run was about starting a movement towards the goals he set out. A permanent movement. It was a perfect storm in some ways. No one in the Democratic Party had the guts to stand up for real progressive change for fear of the DLC and the dominance of the corporate class that dominates them. So it took a left-leaning independent that took advantage of the situation to run as a Democrat in order to remind Democrats of what their historical mandate had been in the past. To work for the 99%.

[freebrew]

63. +1...nt

[ehrnst]

73. I was responding to the "All or nothing is the only way to live a life"

statement in the post above mine.

[ehrnst]

77. The strength of the Democratic party has always been its diversity

And it's coalition of women and minorities. That is the future of the party, and everyone needs to understand that.

Solving income inequality has not eliminated sexism, racism and xenophobia in European countries, so these groups need someone who is going to directly address these issues now.

This election year.

[bullwinkle428]

90. Awesome post. Thank you!

[NurseJackie]

67. Thanks very much for that explanation ... sadly it will fall on deaf ears. Not only is it a way ...

... to lose an election, we have proof positive that it loses a primary.

[ehrnst]

79. You said it. (nt)

[ehrnst]

74. Those of us who have been fighting in the trenches for years

learned that "pie in the sky" expectations led to failure of inspiration in 2010 by people who thought that Obama was going to implement all of everyone's ideas of 'hope and change," and we lost the house.

I've been fighting in the trenches for years, and it's not bullshit. It's lessons learned. People will take "intend to do" as a promise, and when it's not fulfilled, they will sit at home in November as 'protest.'

“The civil-rights movement happened because there was civil disobedience, because people were willing to go to jail, because there were events like Bloody Sunday,” Obama told Stephanopoulos. “But it was also because the leadership of the movement consistently stayed open to the possibility of reconciliation, and sought to understand the views—even views that were appalling to them—of the other side.” Liberalism is a belief in radical change made through practical measures."

[840high]

10. I hope so.

[trumad]

12. Not sure about that....

once in several lifetimes politician get things done.

[JHB]

14. We at least need a bunch that will follow up on his breakthrough

Sanders' campaign was a signal flare to everyone how aspires to party leadership over the next 30 years that there is a solid constituency for policies to work against squeezing the middle class, working class, and poor for the benefit of those in the economic stratosphere.

Garner those votes.

[ehrnst]

76. As well as form coalitions with minorities and women in the lead

That is what has made the Democratic party strong, and expanding those coalitions is the future of the Democratic party.

[NorthCarolina]

34. You can bet existing party rules will be changed

and others will likely be created to prevent another "Bernie" from ever happening again.

[malaise]

3. ANd it looks like he did move the needle n/t

[R B Garr]

4. He was able to spout unrealistic talking points without ever being accountable,

so that hardly defies expectations. Ideas are wonderful, fun things. Realistic goals are not nearly as much fun.

[longship]

6. Nevertheless, he moved the needle left.

As is attested by the changes to both the Dem Platform and Hillary's positions on several substantive issues.

And he is apparently going to endorse Hillary tomorrow -- as us Bernie supporters had no doubt for some time.

So, relax. Breath! No need to hyperventilate. The primaries are over. We are all together, as we always have been.

My best to you.

[R B Garr]

7. Why do you feel the need to pretend that I was "hyperventilating"? Let me guess.

You are trying to insinuate that my simple observation that Bernie was never held accountable for his words must mean that I am somehow crazed about it. LOL, that's exactly the type of reason I could never take the "movement" seriously. Made up accusations and talking points with nothing but emotionality and no basis in reality are a real turnoff.

Jury: I was just accused of "hyperventilating" and told to "breathe" because of a simple observation I made about this current article that was posted just today. There was no need to make this a phony accusation about my emotional state. Thank you.

[longship]

13. Well, the primaries are over.

Bernie lost. And yes, I voted for him.

But just like I do not malign Hillary, I would expect others to set things aside and unite. That's what DU has always been about.

Your post threaded a thin line on that. I made a simple comment about that. Apologies if I got it wrong. It is often difficult to discern intent on a forum post. So forgive me if I did.

United we win; divided we fall.

Tomorrow you will see where Bernie stands. As all Bernie supporters have known for some time. Then it will be time to stop posting about Bernie's so-called unrealistic talking points that Hillary and the DNC Platform committee seem to be taking seriously, even if some DUers do not.

My best regards to you.

[R B Garr]

16. You could also make that same comment to the OP; right? Along those same lines as you are

accusing me of, you could also post the same note to them. But you didn't. And you made no comment about my observation in this thread, you attacked me personally for something that you made up about my emotional state in a very phony and condescending manner.

And talk about "unity"! I stayed away for about two weeks from this site after Hillary won and posted nothing so that people could start moving on, but here it is a month later and these type of attacks are still happening for daring to mention a mere truthful observation that BS was never held accountable. Sorry, but I don't appreciate the selfishness of the "movement". At some point, it should be okay for Hillary to be the focus here and I shouldn't feel like I have to apologize because I supported her.

[longship]

20. I made no personal attack, nor do I.

If one takes a disagreement on policy or politics as personal, than I suppose one would say that it was personal.

A personal attack is an ad hominem, attacking the person instead of arguing the person's position. I do not do that here.

I try to use third person here when I am negative. Sometimes I slip into first person which here is likely to get one accused of a personal attack even though it only means that we disagree.

Let's leave it at that.

Best regards.


BTW, I was not commenting on the OP, but your response to the OP. I thought my response was positive and uniting. I am sorry that you disagree.

[R B Garr]

59. Telling me I need to stop hyperventilating was definitely a personal attack, like

you are my Daddy giving me a head pat to calm me down, all because I made a simple and truthful observation about a politician that I watched for a full year. And telling me I need to "breathe" was also a personal attack, as if you place yourself in a position of condescending, patronizing superiority. On a message board, even. You don't see me, but you think you can put me down by commenting on me personally since that is the only way for you to attack me.

But this is the way that this campaign that ended seems to operate for the entire duration, though. Attack people personally, especially here so you can get their posts hidden when they responded.

I waited weeks to post after my state voted on June 7, and to think I even cared about whether people moved on -- obviously that type of fairness was misplaced.

[tom_kelly]

68. Wow, mister. You're sure angry. A day after the OP

[R B Garr]

69. wow mister, same to you. A day after the OP, someone else attacked me

by calling me a liar with bogus bullshit as an excuse. A day after. Wow, and you kicked this thread too, a day after, so you must be so angry too.

[TheProgressive]

8. Funny how all Sander's policies and positions...

...have been done in America in the past. And they are done in many many advance countries around the world.

Sander's goals are realistic...

[R B Garr]

11. He was never held accountable for anything, though. So it's not funny.

It is reality. Other countries have much smaller populations.

It was just a simple and truthful observation based on a current article posted today. Let's quit posting about a Primary that was decided a month ago now.

[TheProgressive]

15. I was just responding to your post...

Progressives, like me, and other in tuned people, know that we as people and as Americans can implement virtually any policy or program.

[R B Garr]

17. "progressives like me". LOL. That sounds like you are trying to place yourself above me.

Very condescending, as if you are the sole arbiter of who is a "progressive" and who isn't. I'm so done with that phoniness, and probably the reason the "movement' was not successful over time.

I just said that BS was never held accountable for anything he said. Which is the truth.

[SujiwanKenobee]

23. Something about this back and forth...

Reminds me of this 1948 Merrie Melodies cartoon verbiage with Fudd and Buggs as the Old Lady in the movie theater:

"Usher! Usher! This man's annoying me!"

[R B Garr]

37. Aww, nice cutsie passive aggressive retort there. I bet if I tried to call you

and old man or an old woman under the phony guise of quoting a cartoon, you would try to get my post hidden.

[FuzzyRabbit]

19. Some unrealistic policies which have never been done before in the US

1 - higher tax rates on the wealthiest.
2 - graduating from college debt free.
3 - a livable minimum wage.

Oh, wait. These were all policies in effect in the 1950s and 1960s. They were all Democratic Party policies. I grew up with all this. Unfortunately, everyone under the age of 50 knows only Reaganomics, which makes these thing unattainable. And so now even many Democrats think we must accept things the way they are now, hence statements like "pie-in-the-sky promises".

Well, believe it or not, these "pie-in-the-sky promises" used to be common place in the US, and are commonplace in most other industrial nations. And we Democrats ought to be promoting these instead of surrendering to the oligarchy.

[seabeckind]

24. Prior to reaganomics, tax deductions were for investment in products and industry

and people.

After reaganomics, the tax deductions were for investments in money.

[ehrnst]

49. Understanding the obstacles is vital to any attempt to change things for the better.

It's not the same thing as "surrendering to the oligarchy." All or nothing thinking makes a protest, not a movement.

[seabeckind]

21. I do believe that's where he got his ideas.

He knew history.

Not much difference between a national effort to build a broadband communications network and a national effort to build an electrical grid that served all the people.

In fact, Obama proposed just such thing and did an EO:

The President’s Executive Order establishing US Ignite came out two-plus years after the FCC introduced the National Broadband Plan (NBP). The goal of the plan is ambitious:

“The United States must lead the world in the number of homes and people with access to affordable, world-class broadband connections. As such, 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 50 Mbps by 2020. This will create the world’s most attractive market for broadband applications, devices and infrastructure.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/broadband-communications-att-verizon_b_1621871.html

The plan was killed by the telcomm industry. The monopolistic telcomm industry.

Which gets us to another piece of history -- the gutting of the Sherman Anti-trust Act which gave that power to them. BTW, that was done by an EO by a different president. And could be reversed without congressional action.

No mirrors. No smoke.

[ehrnst]

46. Not single payer. Not free college tuition. The US is different than many European nations.

I'm glad that Bernie is now supporting Hillary on Universal Health Care, which can be accomplished in other ways than Single Payer.

There are other industrialized countries that have universal coverage, without single payer, and other countries got a do-over after WW2. To implement single payer would not only be politically impossible, it would disrupt the health care system too much. The problems with reimbursements in Medicare, Medicaid and the whole issue with VA hospitals have to be solved before any talk of single payer makes sense.

Incremental expansion of the ACA is more achievable - both politically and in terms of our health care delivery system.

[The Wielding Truth]

35. Did you ever listen to a speech or read his agenda? It worked. He explained it.It just needed

all our support. It seemed unattainable because we have been cowered into submitting to right wing mumbo-jumbo.

We can change the world if we really commit to it. That's how democracy was won. Total belief that it could be done.

Even-though he will not be our candidate we must still believe that we can bring forth a just and strong economy that benefits the middle class.

[R B Garr]

38. Bwahahaha!! Did I ever listen to Bernie?? These type comments are truly

out of touch. Uh, yes. Bernie said the same thing over and over again for a year. So, yes, I actually heard him. Hard to miss the repetitiveness.

And I'll stick with reality, thank you very much. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich 25 years ago. Al Gore was the author of the climate change movement. Bill Clinton left office with a surplus, but they not pure enough according to Nader, so we got Bush instead. I'll stick with reality.

[The Wielding Truth]

40. There is no time for this now, but sometime after we get our Dem in office

if you can't find anything more repetitive, take another look at what he was saying and you will see that his mantra is the Democratic Progressive agenda to a t. That is what we have been pushing for and that is what he was fighting for. That's all. That's reality ,too.

I'm done.

[progressoid]

42. Wait,

Bill Clinton raises taxes. Good.
Bernie wants to expand on those taxes. Unrealistic?

Al Gore fights climate change. Good.
Bernie wants to fight climate change. Unrealistic?

[R B Garr]

60. Oh, ffs, you can't pretend you didn't read all the anti-Clinton screeds here

for over a year. Bernie's ideas are not all original. Other Democrats have even acted on some -- decades ago.

[progressoid]

64. I mentioned nothing of anti-Clinton screeds or Bernie's ideas not being original.

I'm simply trying to understand how Bernie wanting to raise taxes on the rich or fighting climate change is unrealistic. Especially since, as you say, Democrats have even acted on these in past.

[R B Garr]

65. I'm confident that if you follow the chain of posts to its origination, which is

who I responded to, you wouldn't have to ask such an obvious question. But I'm done with these silly go fetch exercises about Bernie.

HINT: I did go back and read the post I responded to. You'll see the words, "submitting to right wing mumbo jumbo", so if you can't figure out my response to that after reading the chain of posts, then it's no use and I don't think you are really asking a valid question...

[AlbertCat]

44. Jesus!

What a bad winner you are! Just ridiculous.

Still pushing lies like Sanders said the same thing all the time and he was unrealistic.... and of course that Nader is responsible for Bush.

Stick with your reality.... I prefer real reality.

[R B Garr]

58. Jesus yourself. It's been a month and I've hardly posted anything, yet I come

here and it's nonstop Bernie. Which is not reality. Duh.

And still pushing lies yourself, as it's obvious that Bernie was never held accountable for anything he said. It was nonstop podium talking points.

And Clinton/Gore left a nice surplus. Nader said they were the same as Bush. So Nader lied. Remember??

If you don't like what I said, don't kick my posts.

[ehrnst]

47. "Total belief" No - it takes far more.

It would take total belief from the GOP and GOP voters.

That's not going to happen. And no, democracy was not won by total belief - it started with war, and has been changing and developing over the past 250 years. It's still an experiment.

Democracy is messy, because it allows for differences, because "total belief" in one thing or another isn't really possible in a diverse society.

[arcane1]

52. Nope, they're just being an argumentative ass and fighting a battle that's over n/t

[840high]

9. Kick with love for Bernie

[klook]

22. "Sanders's influence became obvious over the past week,

when Clinton proposed expanding access to health care and eliminating college tuition for working families, and when national Democrats changed the party's platform to incorporate his ideas. Sanders said those changes make the platform the most progressive in the party's history."
- from the USA Today article

Not bad for a crazy dreamer with no ability to get things done. Bernie's campaign has inspired millions, whose votes will be needed in November -- and I hope more mainstream Democrats will be intelligent enough to continue adopting his ideas and working with his legions of supporters and donors.

[ehrnst]

48. Hillary was talking about a public option and expanding Medicare in 2008.

During her campaign. Expanding health care coverage was a centerpiece of her issues in 2008.

[klook]

51. True, and then -- like many -- she saw it as an impossible goal

and then recently decided it was worth pursuing again. And that's a good thing, right?


Better Together

[ehrnst]

86. How was she supposed to "pursue it" when she was Secretary of State

or not in public office?

[klook]

88. You can deny

that Clinton opposed Single Payer during this campaign if you like, but the facts would disagree with you.

I'm glad that she now supports it, and I'm glad to support her candidacy for president. Bernie Sanders and I agree on that.

End of story.

[ehrnst]

89. You are confusing the "public option" with Single Payer health care

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

You are talking about two different things.....

You said that she's "pursuing it again" concerning single payer, when she is actually pursuing the "public option" and expanding medicare to those younger, which she has espoused since 2008, when she was a candidate.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=92579


Also, Single Payer a subset of universal health care coverage. Hillary and Bernie have both been advocating for universal health care coverage, Hillary since 1993, when Sanders opposed her plan. Sanders voted for the ACA in 2009.

Those are the facts.

Is that clearer?

[klook]

94. Oh.

My bad. I got excited there for a minute and thought HRC had evolved toward supporting single payer. You are correct -- Clinton does not support single payer and never has.

Well, at least she's revived her support for the public option, even though it apparently would consist of persuading governors to offer it at the state level:

Continue to support a “public option”—and work to build on the Affordable Care Act to make it possible. As she did in her 2008 campaign health plan, and consistently since then, Hillary supports a “public option” to reduce costs and broaden the choices of insurance coverage for every American. To make immediate progress toward that goal, Hillary will work with interested governors, using current flexibility under the Affordable Care Act, to empower states to establish a public option choice.
- Source: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

If we can get a Democratic majority in the Senate and/or House, maybe single payer will be on the table.

[ehrnst]

95. Unfortunately, I doubt it.

Full disclosure - I worked at Kaiser Family Foundation during the 2008 elections, and through 2013.

It is the premier non-partisan, self-funded, independent health policy think thank, and research/polling source. Candidates came to KFF for date in formulating health care policy - Republican and Democrat. Also now a news source for health policy issues.

I asked why Single Payer wasn't considered feasible. I was told that it would be politically impossible at least at this time. A public option couldn't even make it into the ACA, with a Dem House, Senate and WH. And we knew that the law was going be challenged constantly - and it has. Some vital parts, such as Medicaid expansion, were rulled overreach by SCOTUS.

Single payer would also never pass until the very real problems with Medicare and the VA systems were fixed. Providers are dropping Medicare and Medicaid clients because of the tangle of paperwork and refusals for payment that they experience with Medicare and Medicaid. And you've heard about the problems of people dying while waiting for treatment at VA hospitals. No one is going to believe that the entire health care system be switched over to that knowing the problems that are there now.

And even if you could get everyone on board with single payer, the health care system would be disrupted horribly by anything but a gradual implementation. It would be like repaving all the roads in a city at once. Social Security is an example of of thinking long term. It started out covering way less than it does now. Over 75 years, and many administrations, it was possible to do what it does now, but not in a single administration.

Even Bernie decided to drop his push for single payer and vote for the ACA, because he realized at the time that he would be sacrificing better for perfect, and the vote would be that close. I have no idea why he thinks after all the legal challenges and setback to the ACA that single payer is somehow more possible now. And not all European countries use single payer to get universal health care coverage. Some use heavily regulated payers that are subsidized by the government.

And there is the cost. LBJ was able to lie about what Medicare and Medicaid would cost (otherwise, it would never have passed), but you cannot do that now with the CBO, which does the numbers crunching for the financial aspect of every law. You would have to get the GOP on board with Tax increases, and that is like pulling teeth.

So, Bernie was certainly not consulting with the experts on the impact and cost of his health care plan. **To me,** that puts him in the same category as people who will not consult with climate scientists when making policy that impacts global warming, and those who say defunding Planned Parenthood will reduce the number of abortions. When you ignore what the unbiased experts say, that doesn't credit your decision making.

[klook]

96. I did not bash Clinton

so I see no need for you to bash Sanders, equating him with "climate change deniers." I respectfully request that you edit your post to remove the divisive rhetoric.

Other than that, I appreciate the information and your insider's perspective.

[ehrnst]

97. I did not bash Bernie - but have clarified my statements about going against experts.

And... Kaiser Health News did a very informative piece on Single Payer today:

http://khn.org/news/democrats-unite-but-what-happened-to-medicare-for-all/

[Jopin Klobe]

25. " ... long-shot presidential campaign ... " ...

... really? ...

long shot
ˈlôNG ˌSHät
NOUN
1. a venture or guess that has only the slightest chance of succeeding or being accurate ...

... slightest chance? ...

... someone's been schmoozing with Debbie Downer ...

[thelordofhell]

26. When you think about it.......So did trump

[think]

30. Trump got 81 minutes of prime time news coverage from ABC last fall. Bernie got 20 seconds.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

It was obvious what was going on if one wants to think about it...

[jalan48]

27. He defied expectations even with a corporate media blackout for most of the primary.

Thank you Bernie for reminding us what Democrat's can aspire to.

[democrattotheend]

57. Wow, well said!

You said in one sentence what I was stumbling to try to say in three in my post below. "Reminded us what Democrats can aspire to" is the perfect way to describe Bernie's campaign.

[annavictorious]

28. Barack Obama's epic run occurred in my lifetime,

so he gets my vote for "once in a lifetime".

Sanders had a great run this year, but Obama's shot in 2008 was the longer long shot.
And Obama won.
Twice.

[TwilightZone]

39. Agreed.

Pretty tough to top Obama's 2008 run in my lifetime, as well.

[democrattotheend]

54. I think they are both once-in-a-generation politicians in very different ways

This comes from someone who loves them both.

Obama is a once-in-a-generation politician because he was able to inspire people and give us hope even at a very dark time for our country, and because of his ability to genuinely understand all sides of an argument. He has been a great leader at a time when leadership has been sorely needed, and I am heartbroken that his presidency is coming to an end, because I think it will be a long time before we have another president like him.

Bernie is a once-in-a-generation politician because it's rare that someone as unapologetically liberal and independent of big corporate interests as he is could mount a serious campaign for president. The fact that he did as well as he did and did so without compromising his positions, backing away from calling himself a socialist, or cozying up to the traditional large donor base is pretty incredible. I think it sends a message to future Democratic candidates that it is possible for a genuine progressive to mount a serious campaign and to raise enough money from ordinary people to be able to skip the gazillion dollars per plate fundraisers. I think Bernie's campaign will open the door to more progressive, grassroots-funded candidates in the future.

[annavictorious]

56. Sanders run was remarkable.

"Once in a generation" fits nicely.
I'm always amazed by how many "trials of the century" I've lived through. The media has to come up with some new superlatives.

[ehrnst]

87. Obama is and was a team player. That got him the endorsements he needed to get the nomination

Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)

and got him re-elected.

[zentrum]

36. K&R

[BlancheSplanchnik]

53. Kick rec save---for later.

[Kurovski]

61. My hope is that the past is our future

..or something similar.

[underpants]

78. Didn't surprise me at all

From the media's perspective it shows how little they cover the Dems and they CLEARLY ignored him, even longer than would usual be the most you could ignore a story like that.

[Masked Dissident]

83. Bernie Sanders Did More With Less

Jeb Bush did far less with much MORE.

[LostOne4Ever]

100. Both American and the Party are better for him running!

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]And now we can focus on kicking Republican ASS!!![/font]

[shireen]

102. Really proud of Bernie

Thank you, Senator. I've followed you for years, back when you did Brunch with Bernie every Friday afternoon on Thom Hartmann's radio show. I immediately identified with your philosophy, and since then, always referred to myself as a Sanders Democrat.

Thank you. I could repeat that a billion times, and it still would not be enough.