If Bernie could not convince his Senate colleagues to pass a Public Option with the ACA

[Yavin4]

Then how is he going to pass a Single Payer health care system through that same Senate.

[stone space]

1. If at first you don't succeed, give up. (nt)

[brooklynite]

82. Or, if you can't win at one thing, try something else...

...Sanders will also be trying to break up the banks, change tax policies, invest in infrastructure, expand social security, etc.

[Ed Suspicious]

2. FUCKING SHIT! Bernie is generating momentum NOW. Get on board and make it happen. He cannot do it

alone. Can't do it is far better than Hillary and her "won't do it" stance. Why don't you people get it? We aren't hiring a unicorn maker, we're hiring a pragmatic community organizer who will help us to make our ideals happen!

[fleur-de-lisa]

6. Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT

On Fri Jan 15, 2016, 09:29 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

FUCKING SHIT! Bernie is generating momentum NOW. Get on board and make it happen. He cannot do it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1009919

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

So someone's opinion is "fucking shit"? Over the top.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 15, 2016, 09:35 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Whut?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The profanity was unnecessary, but I don't think the post crosses the line into being hide-worthy.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not clear that Fucking Shit is a reference to the opinion or just an exclamation of frustration. El Bryanto
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ed was clearly not calling out someone's opinion as fucking shit. This is a very petty alert, especially for GDP. Either grow a thicker skin or stay out of GDP.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Ed Suspicious]

9. I swear a lot. I felt vindicated after a recent study revealed that people who use the salty talk

are often of higher intelligence than they are given credit for. I guess I've been going to the "naughty word well" a bit much lately because of that. Sorry. My FUCKING SHIT!" exclamation was an expression of frustration. Nothing more. Thanks for not hiding, folks.

[fleur-de-lisa]

11. I swear a lot too!

[JRLeft]

28. Me too!

[Hekate]

122. Plus scatology raises the tone of the discussion no end

[Ed Suspicious]

123. You dislike my word choices? I don't give a scat.

[hobbit709]

26. That's one Hillbot that won't be able to alert for 24 hours.

[MineralMan]

40. Hillbot? Really.

Could you please not do that?

[hobbit709]

41. I could have said acolyte of the Anointed One.

[MineralMan]

49. You could have said "Hillary supporter."

In fact, I think that's probably the best usage. The other forms are direct personal insults. We're not robots, nor are we "acolytes of the Anointed One." Clinton has many supporters. Dissing them with insulting names does not help your cause at all, nor will it convince them to switch their support.

We could use a lot fewer insults during this primary race, I think.

[hobbit709]

55. I'm not polite to people that send in idiotic alerts.

[MineralMan]

56. I see. To whom are you polite, I wonder?

I'll watch for that.

[Agschmid]

65. Yup.

[AgingAmerican]

118. Do you prefer 'alert stalker'?

[MineralMan]

124. Why would I prefer that?

It's equally offensive to me. I don't know of any alert stalking on DU. Skinner says there is none. I alert very, very rarely, and almost always only on personal attacks against other DUers.

[AgingAmerican]

133. It's more offensive being alert stalked

[MineralMan]

134. I checked, and you have zero hidden posts.

You always post in a way that should keep that record, too. So, I'm not sure why you would be "alert stalked" or why anyone would alert on your posts.

Occasionally, I get informed that someone alerted on one of my posts, but otherwise, I have no idea if a post gets an alert. I have one hidden post in the past 90 days. When that post was hidden, I returned to it to see why, and understood why it got a hide from that jury.

Is there alert stalking? I have no idea. I get called about once a day to a jury. Almost always, I vote to leave the post, unless it's particularly egregious in its attack on someone. I'm not seeing the alert stalking thing happening, really.

[99Forever]

43. An alert stalker, put on the sidelines for 24 hrs.

Too bad that it doesn't carry an actually significant penalty.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

68. Rhetorical question alert: the hallmark of a weak and intellectually dishonest alert.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Even if "fucking shit" referred to the opinion, so fucking what?

[Lil Missy]

127. Some people are so .... delicate.

[handmade34]

104. where have we heard this before?

Obama 2 days ago...

"When I ran for office in 2007, 2008, I did not say, 'Yes I can.' I said, 'Yes we can,'"

I am dismayed by the lack of WE over the years... do I believe we will work harder with/for Bernie?

[highprincipleswork]

3. Bernie is not just running for President. He is building a movement.

He commonly states that no one person, including no one President, can single-handedly do much of anything at all.

They can lead. They can use their authority and "the bully pulpit".

He takes about what "we" can do together.

Finally, let us understand that when we stand together, we will always win. When men and women stand together for justice, we win. When black, white and Hispanic people stand together for justice, we win.

Is there really something in what he says there that people on this site can't get behind?

[Yavin4]

18. How does that convince Mitch McConnell to bring up the measure for a vote? n/t

[Nictuku]

29. I am predicting a Democratic Sweep which will change the leadership in congress.

That is how. Mitch McConnell will be going the way of the Dodo.

The Times They Are A Changing!

[Nictuku]

30. Bernie has his work cut out for him

... This will be one of his most important tasks once he becomes President. He has already achieved something I thought was impossible, and that is moving the Democratic party back to where it belongs, on the progressive left (not center-right)

He must rally citizens to vote in the Mid-Terms specifically because he can't do it alone.

I hope he puts a lot of priority to doing that and is able to motivate the electorate.

[Yavin4]

32. How does Bernie convince people in ALA, MS, KY, WV, LA, SC, NC, GA, TX, TN, WY, Idaho, ND, SD,

OH, MO, etc. to vote for progressive congressmen and senators?

[Nictuku]

47. By continuing to tell the truth!

[Ed Suspicious]

107. This. Nobody is pointing the finger of blame where it belongs except Bernie.

[Old Codger]

53. Maybe not

But trying beats the hell out of giving up as you seem to be pushing for, YEAH status quo....

[mahina]

129. Fighting cheer: What do we want? Incremental change, glacial pace. When do we want it?

Oh you know, any time.

[Old Codger]

132. I wanted it before

But they all gave up and said"too hard to do right now, maybe later" and sank back in their chairs and accepted what the insurance industry gave them rather than fight for the real thing. They accepted what amounted to a HUGE gift to the insurance industry.. Guaranteed enrollment at whatever price they could gouge out of it...and a great deal of it comes from our taxes...Didn't do one damn thing to cut over all costs of either insurance or medical care...

[highprincipleswork]

88. He doesn't. You don't get the point. You and others like you do, after he sets it up.

Bernie's point is that only mass vocalizing of what we are going for is ever going to change this fetid, corrupt system that has been rotting since at least the days of Raygun.

Bernie can lead, like any President. But he's not a Superman, in the fascist tradition. He's a leader and those who follow him and believe in what he is saying bear some responsibility. To organize, to volunteer, to donate, to vote, and to make sure that what we all mutually believe in is fought for and considered and voted upon by whatever Congress is in place when he is elected.

Get the plan? Hillary can't deliver squat either, all on her own.

So, how about joining the charge he is leading? That's where I am, and I'm in it for a long, long, long, long time. As long as it takes, to be honest.

That is the power of Bernie power. It's a people's movement, thank God.

[brooklynite]

37. Okay-where's the rest of the movement?

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I've met with almost of our Senate candidates. None of them are talking about Single Payer.

[Fawke Em]

48. We force them to.

They work for us.

[Goblinmonger]

51. Then shame on them

I have seen polls on here that 58% of Americans support single payer. People were not happy when Obama bailed on single payer. If no Senate candidates are talking about single payer, then they aren't paying attention.

But, sure, let's just lay down and let the Republicans control everything. Keep our powder dry and all that. That has worked so well.

[Autumn]

121. What are they talking about? Just their re elections?

Since they aren't talking about things of importance to the Americans whose needs are not being met maybe it's time for them to go. Tell them good luck, "Vote for me I'm a democrat" just don't have the appeal it had at one time.

[treestar]

73. Then he has to get a Congress full of progressives

or with a majority.

That is nothing new and has always been true. But the power is scattered and separated.

[baldguy]

91. Agendas don't get passed & singed into law without a supportive Congress.

What is Sanders doing to get like-minded candidates elected to Congress? Absolutely nothing.

OTOH, in the last quarter Clinton has raised $18 million to help get Democrats elected.

[katsy]

4. IIRC voters were angry that Prez Obama gave up on single payer.

Didn't we lose the house after he stopped fighting for it? I may be wrong.

[mythology]

93. Your contention is that we lost the House in 2010 because Obama didn't get single payer

or some other version of universal coverage?

I suppose it had nothing to do with gerrymandered districts, the fact that we had just had two years of major victories for the party, Republican voters being angry of the ACA, the fact that the party who doesn't hold the presidency almost always wins seats in the mid-terms and the fact that Democratic voters are less likely to turn out in mid-terms.

Instead it was because Obama didn't push for single payer and to express this displeasure people voted for the guys who want to do away with the ACA.

Seems illogical.

[eomer]

106. Quite likely we may have lost the majority anyway, for the reasons you say.

But it would have only improved our chances if elected Democrats had vigorously tried during those first two years to get some things done that the people were clamoring for. It would have resulted in more enthusiasm and better turnout in the 2010 midterm. And even if that extra enthusiasm wasn't enough to keep the majority then we still would have made progress in those two years that would have stayed with us when the stalemate began in 2011.

Unfortunately President Obama was no progressive by a long shot. And many Democrats in Congress weren't either. They (too many of them) were corporatists. And so they didn't try to use that majority to do the things the people wanted. They instead looked for ways to obfuscate the opportunity, to get past it without making those changes because their corporate owners were paying them off to not do those things. President Obama pretended he could strike a bipartisan deal when any idiot knew there wasn't going to be any deal worth making. His surrogates yelled filibuster far and wide and refuse even now to admit that much could have been done by getting around the filibuster using the budget reconciliation process.

The solution is to replace them, every time we have an opportunity, with true progressives. Bernie is one of those opportunities and then we also obviously have to work on progressive members of Congress all the time. There's no other solution. Intentionally supporting another corporatist (like Hillary), for the Presidency or for Congress, would only hurt the effort, not help it.

[katsy]

109. No no I'm sorry

I remember the anger of friends n family and even on DU at the shutting down of single payer in negotiations.

I didn't state the above as fact, just thinking out loud.

Of course many factors come into play.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. How will Hollory get anything done for America seeing how

she is tied to Wall Streets apron strings?

Will the Republicans work with her any more / less than with Bernie, but if they would then it is very telling as to where she stands with the TeaPublicans.

[mmonk]

7. Because he stands for those things. They

aren't lies for bargaining chips or votes.

[Ed Suspicious]

12. this!

[merrily]

8. Plenty of excuses for why Obama could not do it, but none for Indie Senator Sanders.

This posts get more ludicrous by the day.

[Yavin4]

22. Obama wasn't in the Senate. Bernie was.

Why couldn't Bernie convince Joe Lieberman to vote for the Public Option?

[merrily]

25. You're implying that POTUS and head of the Democratic Party is more

impotent than a lone Indie Senator. LOL!

[treestar]

74. what was Bernie's excuse?

Let's admit Obama couldn't do it. Why couldn't Bernie? He was in the Senate. You don't have to be President to persuade your other Senators. If Bernie is that talented, why didn't he at least get us the public option where he could?

Obama tried, and Dems and Bernie were supposed to help.

[Fast Walker 52]

77. Obviously Bernie is not going to be able to do it if the POTUS can't

or if the POTUS doesn't want it.

who said Bernie was that talented? The point is he's got integrity and vision.

[merrily]

90. What a disingenuous post! Name all the things Obama did that show how hard he tried.

Explain how Bernie had more clout than the POTUS and head of the Democratic Party.

At least, Bernie wrote an amendment to ACA (and got it passed) that eleven billion dollars for community-health centers to provide primary care regardless of patients’ ability to pay.

[polly7]

94. ..........

Last edited Sat Jan 16, 2016, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4658292

Please keep this in mind re watching Sally Pipes' testimony and who she is and what she stands for:

TrollBuster9090 (3,005 posts)
69. SALLY PIPES SHILL ALERT: (Just FYI)

Every time I see Sally Pipes spreading her anti-healthcare garbage I want to barf. But I'm not surprised the Republicans invited her. She's part of the wingnut welfare crowd.

Just FYI, there are two paid shills who Republicans usually invite to these dog and pony shows. One is Sally Pipes, who runs a paid, right-wing 'think tank' (aka Propaganda outlet) whose soul purpose is to put out propaganda trashing single payer healthcare systems with cherry picked data. No surprise she appeared here.

The other standard paid shill the Republicans usually invite is Dr. David Gratzer, who was trained as a psychiatrist in Canada, wrote a (self-published) book about how shitty the Canadian healthcare system is WHILE HE WAS STILL A MEDICAL STUDENT, and had no experience of it; and (like his commrade Charles Krauthammer) soon discovered that there was a lot more money to be made as a paid propagandists than there is as a doctor; and moved to NY to do that before ever having seen a single patient.

Gratzer is usually their token Canadian doctor that they always invite to trash the Canadian healthcare system. I don't understand why they didn't invite him! They must be slipping.

I can only conclude that Gratzer is affraid to show up at any hearing where Sanders is present, because the last time he was invited to a hearing with progressives present, Dennis Kuchinich ripped him a new asshole.

Watch this video of Kuchinich taking the little turd apart. It'll make your day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4660362



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027522519

[Mother Of Four]

100. Went to the links

Thank you for posting this

[polly7]

105. You're welcome, Mother Of Four. Thanks for going to the links. nt.

[fredamae]

10. Vote out Corp GOP/Dems?

I understand all 435 seats in the House are up along with 24 seats in the Senate this cycle. I think the Window is open and Ripe for Change.
If we can See that and are Willing to VOTE en masse'....

[thesquanderer]

13. It's not going to be the same Senate, we have these things called "elections"

There are 34 U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2016. Of those seats, 24 are currently held by Republicans. The coattails of a strong Dem victory in November could flip many of them.

It would certainly not be the same Senate that voted for the ACA in 2010.

Moreover, if Sanders wins, the Senate Dems will be led by a President who wants and is willing to fight for single payer. In 2010, they were being led by a President who didn't even put it on the table. Anyone trying to get Single Payer through in 2010 was fighting against the tide. Anyone fighting for it under a Sanders presidency would have a lot of wind at their back.

In short, times change, the voting body changes, the leadership changes... sure, a different outcome is possible. Not everything worthwhile succeeds in its first attempt.

[Herman4747]

17. And it's The House that will Remain the Roadblock...

...for quite some time.
So, technically, this conversation is just academic.
Does point to the need to strive to reduce gerrymandering.

[Yavin4]

20. You need 60 votes in the Senate to cut off debate

Are 60 progressive candidates going to be elected to the Senate during Bernie's tenure?

[stillwaiting]

27. We have to try. Stop fighting us. nt

[Goblinmonger]

52. We need to go back to making them really filibuster

and not this bullshit of "well, then we'll filibuster." OK, jackass, strap the pee bag on your leg and get up there and keep talking, Mr. Big Stuff.

[thesquanderer]

63. A lot can happen in 8 years.

But if you prefer the status quo rather than trying to take the first steps toward actually maybe being able to make some real changes, well, there's a candidate for that, too.

[enid602]

14. believe. . .

Get with the program. Bern will be met by the Republicans with sweets and flowers. It will be a cakewalk. And remember, we won't just have SINGLE PA?YER, but it will be free, and won't run up a tab. Furthermore, we will concurrently have higher SS benefits for seniors, free college, massive infrastructure, and best of ALL, all free! You really can't beat that, especially at a time when our debt to GDP ratio is the highest it's been since the END of the Great Depression. But that's the beauty of Bernie; he'll do more than FDR could even dream, without the benefit of having money to do so. You just have to believe. . .

[corkhead]

15. Bully Pulpit. eom

[malthaussen]

16. Dunno. How will Mrs Clinton?

What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. Demonstrate how Mrs Clinton is likely to have better results in the same scenario. Stipulating that she would even try.

-- Mal

[Yavin4]

19. She's not advocating Single Payer like Bernie is. n/t

[malthaussen]

23. In other words, she wouldn't try.

Got it.

-- Mal

[frazzled]

64. In other words ...

she isn't lying to you, just to win some votes from among the starry-eyed. Sanders, on the other hand, is promising things he's smart enough to know he can't deliver in reality. But they're good lure for the young or gullible. Free college for everyone! (no plan, no analysis of what ancillary things might happen). Medicare for all (no plan still). No big banks (good luck with that). A chicken in every pot.

It's dishonest, imo. It's what is traditionally called demagoguery.

[stillwaiting]

67. You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting Bernie Sanders, what he campaigns on, and the

REALITY he explains we face even if he is elected President.

It's really unattractive, and it takes away from any influence you may have around here.

Bernie says REPEATEDLY that he can't get everything he wants done by becoming President. He promises to fight WITH US to help usher in a new political reality. It's the beginning of his "political revolution". And, my God, do we need one.

So, stop lying about what Sanders is saying and doing. He's not doing what you are putting on him. Sanders isn't the one lying here.

[frazzled]

69. Um, no

The "revolution" is another demonstrably false promise. And your threat of my losing influence around here is laughable--I wield absolutely no influence here, nor do I care to do so.

I'm simply expressing my opinion. I have that right. Your calling it "unattractive" is ... well, I don't care particularly what you think.

[stillwaiting]

70. He's not PROMISING anything. Listen to any one of his stump speeches.

Any one of them. All he's promising to do is to represent our interests over Wall Street's and Big Business's interest. The Executive Office would represent average American's interests. And, he would do what he can to help our country move forward in a progressive way that helps benefit average Americans. That's all he's promising.

You are lying about him. And, I truly don't care what you think about me either. I actually would wear it as a badge of honor at this point if you thought poorly of me. Believe it.

[riversedge]

98. It's a call for Sanders to reveal how he'd pay for his proposal. #ImWithHer

Adam Smith ?@AdamSmith_USA 7h7 hours ago

This is not an attack on single-payer. It's a call for Sanders to reveal how he'd pay for his proposal. #ImWithHer

[mikehiggins]

102. As she evolves it seem obvioius that it is easy for her

She shows no sign of any deep-rooted bedrock convictions. It's easy to evolve over something you don't have. HRC, like Bush, knows which side of the bread her butter is on and FIGHTING for a cause is not in her wheelhouse.

[ljm2002]

114. "just to win some votes"...

..."from among the starry-eyed".

Please. You are addressing a discussion board that is overwhelmingly composed of DEMOCRATS, and the overwhelming majority of the DEMOCRATS on this board support Bernie Sanders. Dismissing all of us a "starry-eyed" is vapid and counter-productive. If you want to discuss policy, do that. But this is ridiculous.

"good lure for the young or gullible". Well me, I'm collecting Social Security, so I ain't young. And I've been around the block a few times. I'll admit I was a little gullible with Obama -- I thought he would fight harder for things like a public option.

"Free college for everyone". No. That is not the proposal. The proposal is tuition-free colleges and universities at all state-run institutions, for EVERYONE WHO QUALIFIES. He is not proposing any changes to admissions requirements.

Bernie knows he can't promise to succeed in all of his proposals. What he has PROMISED to do, is to FIGHT FOR THEM. Based on his record over the last 40 years or so, I believe him on that promise.

Misrepresenting positions just because you think it makes a good sound bite, is actually... lying.

[Kall]

86. So how will Hillary get anything she's talking about through Congress?

You can make this argument about anything.

[arcane1]

81. They won't admit she'll succeed by promoting policies repubs will agree with.

It's their dirty little not-so-secret.

Somehow we're expected to believe this is a Good Thing, because republican-friendly policies are GREAT if promoted by someone with a D next to their name

[Motown_Johnny]

21. And how will Hillary get anything (progressive) done?

Defeatism is not a reasonable strategy.

[Thenewire]

31. I really understand the sentiment and agree

It is very likely that Clinton wont implement anything progressive but she also wont destroy what has already been accomplished. We are no longer dealing with an opposing party on the basis of ideas, the opposing party just wants to dismantle everything that Obama has done and go even further than that. There is no logic or reason with republicans, just complete greed and hatred towards everyone that they feel doesn't tread their dystopic vision. The evil is now very obvious just by looking at who their top candidates are, so tell me how do you expect Sanders or any populist progressive to win the general election? Sadly the fact is that in this election only a centrist or an extreme right winger is going to win.

[jeff47]

36. Yes, like she didn't support dismantling welfare.....oh wait, she did.

she also wont destroy what has already been accomplished

Her record demonstrates otherwise. She even wrote a book about how great it was to destroy welfare.

Sadly the fact is that in this election only a centrist or an extreme right winger is going to win.

2014, 2010, 2004 and 2000 say "Hi". And remind you that this talking point doesn't actually work.

There is no "vast middle" for centrists to appeal to. Independents are not a mushy blob in the middle of the parties. There are Democratic-leaning independents and Republican-leaning independents. Each group will only vote for the party they are aligned with. They will never vote for the opposing party. Instead, they'll stay home.

The "mushy blob" narrative is created by not properly separating these two groups in polling. If you smash these two groups together you get the appearance of centrism, just like smashing Democrats and Republicans together will give the appearance of centrism. But there aren't any actual voters there.

Attempting to win Republican-leaning independents will fail. Just like it failed in 2014, 2010, 2004 and 2000. Republican-leaning independents will not vote for a Democrat, and appealing to them causes Democratic-leaning independents to stay home. Because Democratic-leaning independents are actually to the left of the median Democrat.

[Thenewire]

38. I really hope you are right.

But there is already close to 20% of the US population who is willing to support a dystopic vision and when it comes to fear mongering and an even greater number is easily swayed to go against their best interests. So what do you think would happen if the Sanders loses the general election against Trump or Cruz? Where would the democratic party go from there?

[jeff47]

46. There's almost two decades of polling backing me up.

There's "This is how we thought it worked in 1984" backing up the "vast middle" narrative.

[ljm2002]

115. Who is polling better right now against Trump or Cruz?

I'll wait.

[Thenewire]

125. General election polling doesn't matter at this point.

Liberalism generally doesn't rely on fear mongering but right wingers thrive on it. Sanders will be accused of being a communist and far worse. This isn't a young politician we are talking about. Sanders has a lot of history that republicans will use to demonize him, starting with the fact that he is a career politician.

[ljm2002]

131. If liberalism generally doesn't rely on fear mongering...

...then why are you fear mongering? I quote:

"So what do you think would happen if the Sanders loses the general election against Trump or Cruz?"

The fact is, right now, that scenario is more likely if Clinton is the nominee than if Sanders is.

Everything else you say is pure speculation. You can ignore the national polling if you wish, but it seems a bit disingenuous to wave it away because it contradicts the fear you are mongering.

[Thenewire]

135. Simple

I'm not talking about policies. I agree with everything Sanders says except for guns. A liberal doesn't need to rely on fear mongering to make an argument in favor of their ideas and that includes the argument in favor of wealth distribution. What I'm saying is that the populism that Sanders seeks has no bearing on the realities of this country. As much as we would all want those ideas to win over voters they wont because the system has to be changed from within. The majority will not vote in favor of a politician who seeks to increase the size of a government that is seen as the problem. The republican argument has already won due to fear mongering and if it's Sanders against any republican he will lose.

[ljm2002]

136. Well, again, I will point out that YOU are fear mongering...

...when you say: "The republican argument has already won due to fear mongering and if it's Sanders against any republican he will lose."

You said in the post that I replied to, "General election polling doesn't matter at this point." -- which is a very convenient ploy, trying to dismiss the only factual information we have now concerning who would win against Republicans -- namely, national polls of Democratic candidates against Republican candidates. Since those polls show Bernie doing better (and sometimes much better) against Republican candidates, it is more convenient for your argument to simply claim they don't matter.

So reject the head-to-head polling if you wish. But the polls we do have, contradict your central point, which is that Bernie is the riskier candidate against a Republican.

[Thenewire]

137. Those polls are meaningless

He is ahead because fewer Americans know who he is and what his ideas are compared to Clinton who has been a target for over two decades. People have already made up their minds on her for better or for worse so on a head-to-head match up you are getting a more realistic result. You could argue that Sander's polling against a republican could improve if he is the nominee and in the spotlight but you would also have to deny the fact that many polls show that in a general election the population is unwilling to vote for a socialist. A socialist is ranked lower than every other republican bogyman: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/11/one-third-millennials-like-socialism/

Again I'm all for socialism and in fact I would go even further than Sanders in my imaginary world and get rid of wall street altogether in order to end the recklessness that is financial speculation. But even I know that these ideas are just that, imaginary. I'm not saying that to demean them but rather because I understand the reality of this country where the large majority favor the status quo and that includes nearly all republicans and independents who in their mind think that Obama has gone too far with the policies he has implemented and wish to undo most of them if not all. I also believe that this can change and we will eventually become more progressive as a nation but this will not happen overnight and certainly not in 2016.

[ljm2002]

138. Terribly sorry...

...but you do not get to cite polls that support your thesis while rejecting those that do not. Well, of course you get to, but then I get to point out that's what you are doing.

Your argument that Bernie is winning the head-to-head polls against Republicans because "fewer Americans know who he is" is laughable. If they don't know who he is, then they won't be choosing him in a poll. Come on.

While there are certainly some issues with the "socialism" label, it seems that Bernie is making his case quite well in that regard. In fact, here are some polls for you:

http://www.alternet.org/poll-more-democrats-now-favor-socialism-capitalism

October 24, 2015

Surprisingly, Democrats now have a more positive view of socialism by double digits: (chart shows positive view of capitalism at 25%, positive view of socialism at 48%).

The article notes that this is a change since May 2015, which is when Bernie started his campaign -- and notably, he decided NOT to run away from being a socialist (well actually, a democratic socialist).

Then there is this NYT article from Nov. 20, 2015:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/poll-watch-democrats-even-clinton-supporters-warm-to-socialism/

Poll Watch: Democrats, Even Clinton Supporters, Warm to Socialism

Senator Bernie Sanders’s speech on Thursday explaining his democratic socialist ideology carried little risk among supporters and other Democrats: A solid majority of them have a positive impression of socialism, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released this month.

Fifty-six percent of those Democratic primary voters questioned said they felt positive about socialism as a governing philosophy, versus 29 percent who took a negative view.

Finally I offer this article from June 2015, regarding the Gallup poll about whether Americans would vote for a socialist:

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/47-percent-americans-would-vote-socialist-gallup-poll

47 Percent of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist: Gallup Poll

In a country where “socialist” is often used as a pejorative — and misused in too many ways to list here — it’s news that 47 percent of Gallup poll respondents say they’d vote for a socialist candidate for president.

This article is from last June, i.e. just one month after Bernie's campaign began full throttle. I believe that his campaign may have already made inroads into this figure, but we do not have data yet. With the early primary votes and caucuses nearly upon us, we will know soon enough whether the wave is still building, or whether it has already crested.

[stillwaiting]

44. I completely disagree with your assessment. And, if that really does sadden you join the fight.

It's possible to win with Bernie. Independents strongly favor him over Clinton and Trump (and the other Republicans).

That's the ticket to the White House. Hop aboard.

[Motown_Johnny]

45. You think that Bernie would destroy what has been accomplished, and Hilary won't

I think you have that backward.

The idea that Bernie would remove health care from people is completely insane.

Hillary on the other hand has already voted to pass the Bush Bankruptcy Bill.

Hillary has proven that she will destroy what has been built. Her Iraq war vote is another example. She wants a no fly zone in Syria. She supports free trade, and always has. She wants to expand corn based ethanol. She says we can wait 20 years before addressing emission standards.

Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen. Bernie is a true progressive who wants the best for the average citizen.

You have things backward.

[onecaliberal]

103. What has been accomplished is the dems have been dragged so far right that

We are voting for republican ideas consistently. We are voting for people who are starving children to protect tax cuts and loopholes for the wealthy. How in the fuck is that a democratic ideal? Death by 1,000 paper cuts is still death. We are still being dragged right ever so slowly. I for one, have retreated back left. For the sake of my family, and the planet.

[stillwaiting]

24. Such a stupid argument when our government is so thoroughly corrupted currently.

And, you would blame one of the FEW that aren't bought off.

The answer to your question is that with Bernie we have a CHANCE at getting a future Congress that will serve the will of the people to enact a single payer system. We have a CHANCE with Bernie as President. I have no doubt that Bernie would tell the American people what they need to do to help get a Congress that will work on behalf of what the people want.

With Hillary, we won't make ANY ground towards one day having single payer. On the contrary, with Hillary saying we can't have single payer and not even bringing it up for discussion she ensures that single payer is a much more distant possibility.

Having a PRESIDENT that supports single payer would be a huge step forward to maybe getting single payer one day, and that is the best we can hope for right now. It definitely is something to fight for when a majority of Americans want it, and continuing to say it can never happen is pathetic. Especially when so much is at stake. American lives and happiness are at stake, and we DESERVE a system that covers all of us. Please stop fighting us.

And, blaming Bernie Sanders when our Senators are so completely bought off and captured by corporate interests is pathetic. It's just pathetic. When you have a bunch of SENATORS that are corrupted by money and power how do you expect Bernie Sanders to single handedly overcome that corruption. Bernie would be the START of a political revolution. One that gets the politicians' attention and lets them know they better start representing us instead of multinational corporations. We have to start somewhere, and this would be a huge accomplishment and an incredible start to the process.

[Yavin4]

35. If Bernie fought long and hard for Single Payer and it failed to pass...

then his presidency would be labeled as a failure which would mean that future politicians would shy away from that fight for generations.

Americans respect success. Obama's ACA is gaining in popularity because he won the fight which many people here dismiss. No future Dem candidate is ever going to run on repealing the ACA, and that in of itself is the major first step that you're looking for.

[stillwaiting]

39. If he did that and we ended up having more people in Congress that support single payer...

... at the end of his term he most certainly would not be seen as a failure. At least not by those of us that actually WANT single payer.

Bottom line: With Bernie as President, I believe that in 10 years we will have MANY more people in Congress than we do now that support single payer. As a result, in 10 years I believe we would be MUCH closer to one day having single payer.

With Hillary as President, I don't believe we will have stronger representation in Congress for single payer than we do currently. So, 10 years from now you would be saying the same thing as you are now, and we would be stuck with a reality in which we are very far from ever having single payer in this country. That is the scenario that the vampiric insurance companies would love no doubt. Many of us will fight to ensure that's not the reality our country faces a decade from now.

Do YOU support single payer?

[Old Codger]

58. Much better

To die trying than to give in and concede before the battle starts... you are on the losing side and trying to bail with a sieve...

[Yavin4]

59. Much better to get incremental victories which makes the overall goal easier to achieve

Going for it all and failing scares away other politicians from trying.

[stillwaiting]

61. Why in the world would politicians be SCARED about supporting something that a majority of

Americans support?

And, for Democratic politicians they also have 80% support from Democrats. They should be scared to openly oppose it with those figures. And, I hope those figures cause for some politicians to lose their political aspirations. Health care in this country is so corrupt. And, it's a horrible system compared to other developed countries. We know this now. Politicians that fight our wishes for reform should fail to win elections to represent us. Hopefully that will be Hillary's fate. And, many others. THEN we will see single payer in this country. When politicians realize they can't snub the people's wishes any longer.

I look forward to you joining the growing demands for a sane health care system in this country. We're almost at a point where they can't ignore us any longer without facing consequences for doing so.

[Old Codger]

62. well

Some of the teenagers around might like to see it happen in their lifetimes..

You, sir are badly deluded if you think that H can/will accomplish anything that in any way,shape or form might cut into the insurance or banking industries bottom line..

[Jim Lane]

75. You mean, like Harry Truman's failed effort for government health care?

Truman tried to get a program through. He failed. So what happened as a result? Pick one:

(1) His presidency was labeled a failure and future politicians shied away from that fight for generations.
(2) He helped advance the idea in the public consciousness and was sitting next to LBJ when Medicare was signed into law.

Hint: Here's a photograph of politicians shying away from the issue.

[ljm2002]

116. " No future Dem candidate is ever going to run on repealing the ACA,"...

..."and that in of itself is the major first step that you're looking for."

And that is just flat-out false. It is pure political framing, directly from the Clinton camp. No one, least of all Bernie, would repeal the ACA as a first step! WTF are you talking about? IF he were able to get a single payer bill passed, then yes, that would have the ultimate effect of doing away with the ACA -- but the alternative system of single payer would already be in place.

It's okay to argue based on policies, to say it's pie in the sky, whatever. But please do not misrepresent your opponent's position like this. It muddies the waters and makes it nearly impossible to have an actual discussion based on the merits.

[jeff47]

33. Someday, people who oppose Sanders will actually understand

that Sanders supporters do not think he is the messiah who will magically implement everything in the first 2 hours of his presidency.

But that day is not today.

[Fast Walker 52]

79. ha, yes-- I tend to think electing Bernie as sending a long overdue message to the PTB

a message that will spark more like him into power.

[Capt. Obvious]

34. I'm sensing a theme

[Fawke Em]

42. Ummm... it was never on the table.

How can you convince others to do something they're not even presented with?

[Doctor_J]

50. And yet he wants to keep trying to get everyone healthcare, unlike the candidate who tried for it in

1993, but now sides with the Big Insurance death merchants.

[Fearless]

54. Different Senate, and we will. Not he. WE.

[99Forever]

57. Always nice to hear from the...

...Surrender Without Trying Wing of the Democratic Party.

[randome]

60. Clinton already tried in the 90s.

If you think Obama would not have tried if he thought it had a chance, you don't see the same man I see.

In politics, no one likes a loser. In fact, there usually is a price to pay. Which is why politicians refrain from endorsing anything they aren't confident will bear fruit.

If Sanders does not have a workable Congress, he will accomplish the same as past attempts: he will be unsuccessful. And he will pay a price.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[ljm2002]

119. You mean Hillary Clinton, right?

You are referring to the 90s, back when she was the First Lady, right?

Hint: She was NOT an elected representative to anything at the time. I suspect that fact did not help her in her endeavors.

[ChiciB1]

66. YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT So Many Of Our So Called

Democrats are Blue Dogs and DLC/Third Way don't you!!! So many of the people need to go! I DO believe Tim Canova is going to KICK DWS's ASS! Can not wait for THAT one. He's really gaining traction and catching on like WILD FIRE!!

These people WILL be the coat tails that Bernie can bring to the table. Even if he doesn't get the nomination, people who would never have run for office are now coming out of the wood work because they see how much support Bernie is getting.

It may be Hillary who will have THAT problem in the end. They may get elected and DLC will be on the offensive! Yep, people now think they too can win!

ALL of this is a GOOD sign for me because these people are the kind of people who joined the Democratic Party I once knew!!!!!

[Maedhros]

71. It's hard, so we shouldn't even try?

It the face of such political courage, we can't lose!

[randome]

110. It's hard to work within the Democratic party, as Sanders is trying to do.

You've apparently given up on that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

72. good point, I think the answer

will be something about the bully pulpit and the powers of the Presidency.

but the reality is that this country refuses to be that liberal at this time, which would translate into Senators who would be all for it.

[ljm2002]

120. And yet a clear majority of Americans...

...are for single payer health care. 58% or something like that. And there is 80%+ support for the idea among Democrats. And yet right now, we have only one Democratic candidate who openly supports the idea. Oddly enough, his popularity continues to increase. Maybe addressing the issues that your Democratic constituents feel is important, is a winning strategy... ya think?

[villager]

76. Especially with the way the President was unflaggingly keeping his campaign pledges! How on Earth

...could it have possibly missed!?

It's obviously Bernie's fault, entirely!

[Jim Lane]

78. By contrast, Hillary DID convince her Senate colleagues to pass the Iraq War Resolution.

Now that's leadership!

[brooklynite]

83. What evidence do you have that she convinced anyone else?

I realize that "voted with most of the Democrats" isn't quite as punchy...

[Jim Lane]

87. You're right. It's quite possible that no one in the Senate gave a good goddam what she thought.

I stand corrected.

[arcane1]

84. And she repeated EVERY ONE of Bush's lies, verbatim, to get it done.

These idiots somehow think this is supposed to be something to celebrate, simply because she has the "D".

[arcane1]

80. You surrender awfully easy n/t

[Vincardog]

89. Haven't you heard there is an election. We don't have to keep " that same Senate".

[Samantha]

92. There is a very small window tucked into the Affordable Care Act which gives states the option

of creating a single payer plan. That alone, getting that passage included in the legislation, was a huge step forward. Now it is up to the people. Of course, the opposition will be fierce. There is just too much money involved. How it all ends up depends on the amount of people willing to jump in and fight for it, and follow through.

Sam

[saltpoint]

130. Excellent comment. eom

[Warren Stupidity]

96. Vote for Hillary because she won't try to do anything Republicans wont agree to!

Is that really your argument?

[betterdemsonly]

97. Public Option was Obama's proposal not Bernies

Dah! Having said that most Bernie griping is sour grapes from the fan club, who don't want it exposed that Obama was just into personal advancement, and it showed to those of us who have been involved in politics a long time. If Bernie weren't as self interested, and uninterested in issues as Obama, the young people would figure it out too.

[99Forever]

99. Your desperation is showing.

My heart bleeds for you. Watching the wheels come off The Hillary Express really has you sad folks in a lather.

[zazen]

101. pick up Senate and Gov seats in general; primary conservative congressional Dems

In NC we've been so gerrymandered that until 2020 and more federal work at getting Citizens United overturned, our only hope is to primary conservative Dems in the "safe" districts (too late for that this year) and focus on voter turnout in the purplish-red districts. Enough turnout (and that includes fighting voter suppression efforts) can help with this, but in gerrymandered GOP states we have an uphill battle for awhile.

We very much need a serious economic progressive caucus in Congress with party infrastructure into the states and localities. This can't all fall on one man.

[redstateblues]

108. How did your progressive Senate candidate do

In the last mid terms? Blue leaning NC can't elect a Democrat to the Senate instead of CEO Thom Tillis and you think NC will vote for a Socialist. I'm sure your argument is that if you had run a pure progressive you would have won. I live in a state similar to yours and I can tell you that we are a long way from electing anything but hard right Senators. It sucks but it is the reality.

[brooklynite]

111. Great! None of the Senate and Gov seats will be won by advocates of Single Payer...

(I've talked to most of them). You don't have candidates to primary "conservative congressional Dems", and it's pretty much too late to get them in the race now.

[underthematrix]

126. Yep. Reality is stubborn like that

[hrmjustin]

112. DU Rec.

[ljm2002]

113. False equivalence...

...Bernie was one Independent Senator from Vermont when the ACA was being negotiated. His megaphone wasn't that big.

However, Bernie has worked doggedly over the last 25 years in Congress, promoting ideas like single payer, getting better care for vets, and similar things. He has not wavered in his positions. Now at last we are at a time when people are mad enough to give his proposals a real listen.

Should he surprise us all and win the Presidency, he will be in a much different position than Senator from Vermont.

Anyway, all of this "How, how, how?????" stuff is getting old. BY TRYING. Even if he (and WE) does not succeed, he will have laid the groundwork. All Hillary will lay the groundwork for IMO is more of the same corporate control that has us all paying tribute to the great and mighty super-rich, who continually manipulate policy to get themselves MORE MORE MORE of everything.

Fuck them.

[AgingAmerican]

117. He wasn't president then

Duh!

[saltpoint]

128. Doorknobs at the Ford Theater

are not complicit in the assassination of a president who might attend a performance at that venue.

Would an assassin have to walk through doors to get in? Probably. Would those doors have knobs? Likely.

Were the doorknobs removed from the theater doors, could an assassin still enter the theater? Yes.

Would someone who has no intent whatsoever to assassinate the president use the same doors? Yes.

Might it be accurate to say that doors are in place as doors have always been, regardless of who passes through them or who doesn't?

The Senate changes every time an election is held to change it, which is frequently. Voters sending someone like Bernie Sanders to Washington may have a different priority list than voters who think Jim Inhofe is a sentient being. I think it would be if we progressives could choose all 100 senators, but that's not how the game is played.

One works toward the light. Sanders is no slouch at that challenge. When meaningful reforms are opposed, it's wise to ask who is doing the opposing and to the tune of what amount of campaign contribution.