Pelosi and Schumer could ease concerns about Sanders' more radical proposals

[Alhena]

If Sanders is the nominee they could make it clear in interviews and such that most of their caucus will vote to enact a Democratic agenda, not a Democratic Socialist agenda. They could then say that, if you want to get rid of Trump, but have concerns about some of Sanders' more radical proposals becoming law, you don't have to worry about that.

Just trying to think of how we can deal with Sanders as the nominee as a party, because it really looks like it's going to happen.

[Zolorp]

1. If Sanders is the nominee, that's the whole ball game.

Trump will be re-elected, guaranteed.

The Republicans retain the Senate, guaranteed.

And there's a good chance, the Republicans retake the House.

[still_one]

5. I suspect that would be the outcome if he was the nominee

[Horizens]

29. 1000%

correct.

Sanders is a disaster.

[katmondoo]

2. Sanders has lots of problems why should he be the nominee?

Biden is 100 times better than Sanders here and abroad. I do not like an angry man in my face all of the time. Why are people pushing a loser.

[TwilightZone]

3. He would face the same challenges as every president.

All presidents make promises that are met with the cold reality of Congress once they're in office. Sanders would be no different. Whatever he proposes will be sliced, diced, and recombined, just like every major bill, and he can only sign (outside of exec orders, of course) what Congress sends him.

[Kurt V.]

4. There had been no centralized message on important issues for

Decades. it ain't gonna start now. Herding cats is hard.

[underthematrix]

6. Speaker Pelosi already addressed

the M$A. It's not gonna happen. Sanders like other candidates is sharing his wish list of policies he'd like Congress to enact but sometimes those things don't happen. Of course Sanders would do everything he can LEGALLY to expand coverage and reduce prescription costs. Adults understand this and will not hold it against the nominee if they can't achieve many items on their first term wish list.

[TexasTowelie]

7. I don't see any reason why either Pelosi or Sanders would want to ease concerns about Sanders'

proposals at this time. I think that they prefer other candidates to receive the nomination.

[Alhena]

8. I meant after he was the nominee

[Moderateguy]

10. Let's wait and see

I personally think that Schumer and Pelosi (with Bloomberg’s money) will concentrate on down-ballot races while doing the bare min to support Sanders. At that point, they will need to fight like hell to just keep the house

[Garrett78]

9. You don't start from a position of compromise, unless you want the GOP...

...to end up getting more or less what they want, which is what continually happens.

There's value in dreaming big and doing all you can to build a movement of support behind what really are common sense policies that would benefit all of society. The only reason Sanders's policies are considered radical is because the US is essentially one giant insane asylum--and if we don't make some major fundamental changes soon, we're all screwed.

In spite of the billions in propaganda, what are called by some "far left" positions poll extremely well. What's lacking is the fight, the will.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. Republicans aren't going to compromise with us to begin with, no matter where we start at.

Now that that is out of the way, the real problem with Sanders's strategy is that it will turn off Democrats who might otherwise be inclined to actually support further healthcare reform.

And the reason Sanders's policies are considered "radical" is because rather than continue the progress that has been made in the past by solidifying gains and continuing to elect Democratic candidates, progressives voted for Nader over Gore and let Bush win; progressives abandoned Obama after he helped pass the greatest healthcare reform in a generation and let Republicans win and write the rules to keep themselves elected through gerrymandering during a census year; and instead of voting for "the most progressive platform" in party history -- Sanders's description, not mine -- they shit on the Democratic candidate and stayed at home or voted for Stein over Hillary and let Trump win.

Running """moderate""" candidates didn't shift the Overton window -- letting Republicans win is what shifted the Overton window.

[Garrett78]

13. Let's pretend for a moment that I agree with all of that...

...if Republicans aren't going to compromise, that's all the more reason to not bother conceding ground right up front. Instead, build a movement of support behind policy positions that are both necessary and supported by a large majority of the population.

And if "progressives" keep voting 3rd party or staying home, then how does doing more of the same help us? Wouldn't it make more sense to do that which will get those folks to vote Dem, knowing that those who already vote Dem aren't going to stop voting Dem? Or is it better to keep losing just to spite all those darn "progressives?"

We're in grave danger as a society and even as a species. We're running out of time to make the radical changes that are necessary. We need leaders advocating for policies that will inspire an army of Greta Thunbergs to raise hell on Washington.

[W_HAMILTON]

16. They aren't conceding ground to Republicans.

They are putting forth rationale plans that actually have a chance of passing, mainly on the backs of Democratic votes. Furthermore, if it turns out the Democrats they need to get it passed end up being in favor of going FURTHER, you think they wouldn't do that? They will try to get as much consequential change passed as is possible.

And, no, it doesn't make sense, because there are plenty of more moderate Democrats and Independent types that would sit out if we elect someone they view as too radical, and there are probably more of them than there are those that would vote for a loser like Jill Stein (e.g., even though her few thousand votes were enough to sway the election, her support was relatively nonexistent). You are probably going to have this problem to some extent regardless of whether a moderate or progressive is nominated, but there are more moderates than progressives out there (meaning there is a better chance we lose more votes by nominating a progressive than by nominating a moderate) and the root word of progressive is progress, which means they should be always trying to make progress, regardless of who is nominated. A vote for a third party spoiler like Nader or Stein does nothing to make progress -- except for progress in getting Republicans elected to roll back actual progressive legislation and nominate conservative judges to the courts to dismantle actual progressive reforms.

[Garrett78]

21. Here's the problem I keep running into:

People are making what may feel like reasonable assumptions about "independents," "moderates," "undecideds" and so on. If someone is an "independent," then that must mean they are such and such. In reality, those who self-identify as those things are all over the map ideologically-speaking. Read here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/.

The research is clear; the assumptions that feel reasonable are just flat wrong. The vast majority of independents are even more wedded to a particular party than party-affiliated voters of prior decades.

Meanwhile, there are millions of people who are disenchanted and are either voting 3rd party or staying home. You may despise them for that, but that won't make them go away. So, again, we can stop making false assumptions about 'indies' and 'moderates' and build a movement that is desperately needed ASAP, or we can keep doing what we've been doing to spite all those darn "progressives."

If hundreds of bills are going to languish on McConnell's desk, we might as well do what it'll take to inspire people to beat down McConnell's door. Millions of young people are starving for leadership that will give them reason to believe there's hope, that they have a future.

And, yes, we are conceding ground all the time. This is what compromise with Republicans has looked like for the last several decades:

<img src="" alt="Image result for obama compromise cartoon"/>

[W_HAMILTON]

23. No, they aren't making assumptions.

We have since had an election in 2018 where a lot of these competing assumptions were put to the test. We regained control of the House on the backs of more moderate candidates -- not progressive candidates. Many of those same moderate candidates are now sounding the alarm that their reelection will be made more difficult if we nominate someone like Sanders. They know their constituents better than Sanders does or you and I do.

And where are the signs of this "movement" being created? Once again, moderate candidates were the ones that won back control of the House. Progressive candidates were the ones winning seats we already had. Several prominent progressive candidates (most notably, Andrew Gillum, I would say) lost in a purple state during a strong blue wave election (I believe the more moderate senator up for reelection actually outperformed him as well, if I remember correctly). Sanders has lost half of his support from last go around and there are no signs he is bringing tons of new voters into the fold. In fact, I believe in New Hampshire, turnout was greater among older voters when compared to 2016, with the younger voters that Sanders attracts being a smaller demographic this year than last nomination (~14% in 2020 vs. ~19% in 2016). If Sanders is inspiring a bunch of young people to vote, he is apparently inspiring even more older people to vote -- and those older people are voting for someone other than him.

[Garrett78]

31. 2018 was the result of record high mid-term turnout, particularly among youth and POC.

District races are a completely different animal than a national race. A moderate can win a given district while a more progressive candidate wins a national election. Those aren't mutually exclusive events. There were many moderates who won and many progressives who won their respective races in 2018.

And, yes, people are making false assumptions. I see it constantly on DU with posts implying that "independent" is synonymous with middle-of-the-road or moderate. "We have to make sure we appeal to the independents" is a common refrain. Again, the vast majority of so-called independents are completely wedded to a particular party. Hell, not even moderate is synonymous with moderate. Again, I refer you to the 538 article. People who self-identify using those terms are all over the ideological map.

Lastly, this idea that Sanders would remain at 25-30% support if only we had a 2-person race is undoubtedly another false assumption. Outside the DU bubble, Sanders is far, far more popular than people here want to admit. And, as confusing as it may be for folks here, he is the 2nd choice for a large number of supporters of other candidates.

[Moderateguy]

19. Here's why this argument doesn't work

We don’t elect Presidents on popular votes- as we were reminded in 2016. In order to pick up swing states we need a small percentage of Republicans to vote for the democratic candidate. So, in addition to progressive not staying at home, we need a candidate that has some cross-party appeal to pick up swing states EC votes to get to 270. This is a prime year for this, there are still a decent number of Republicans that cannot tolerate Trump. A Bloomberg (and possibly a Biden) would appeal to these voters and get us the 270

[Garrett78]

22. I'm reminded of the person who has twice posted the falsehood that 2018 was the result of...

...Trump voters voting Dem. It's simply not true, and I don't know where people are getting this idea from. Read here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/10/18076872/trump-46-percent-solition.

And see post #21 regarding other false assumptions that people keep making.

The number of Republicans who are opposed to Trump (not very many given his approval rating within the party) who might vote Dem (if and only if we nominate a moderate) are not great enough in number to be considered vital. It's far more important that we boost turnout of youth, POC, white suburban women, etc. We sure as hell aren't going to do that with Bloomberg. 2018 wasn't the result of Trumpies switching sides or anti-Trump Republicans voting Dem; it was the result of record high Dem turnout. For instance, every single major racial or ethnic group saw a greater increase in turnout from one mid-term to the next than ever before. And no age group saw a greater increase in turnout than the 18-29 age group (from 20% in 2014 to 36% in 2018). That's why we won big in 2018.

[Moderateguy]

24. EVERY republican is not a Trump voter

13k people voted for Bill Weld against Trump in the NH primary

[Garrett78]

27. I edited my post to include more info about that very subject.

[UniteFightBack]

20. All that voting 3rd party sure doesn't look very progressive with the benefit of hindsight. nt

[CalFione]

11. If his agenda can't pass - then the rationale for his whole candidacy is gone

Why would we elect a cranky, 78-year-old, socialist with heart disease if he CANNOT implement his agenda?

[nobuddy]

14. I also find it wise

To kneecap the agenda of the person who wins the support of our party because that will be a political winner.

People were worried leading into 2008 that Obama could lose - if Pelosi and Reid had just assured the public that Obama wouldn’t do anything to address health insurance or rescue he economy, before the election we would have won 50 states.

[question everything]

15. Sanders does what he wants. No one is going to hold him back

We already have an example of someone in the White House doing what he wants. Everyone has been telling his to slow on his twitting and he laughs at their face.

[Lordquinton]

17. Um, how about backing him?

Radical idea, but just saying "I support Sanders" is a good start.

[MoonlitKnight]

18. I have been saving this...

But what the heck.

Everyone who fears the top of the ticket impacting then down ballot, especially House and Senate can state the following.

“I don’t agree with everything ______ is running for. But I can assure you, that unlike my Republican opponent, I take my oath seriously. And I will check the power of the president, conduct oversight, and disagree with the president, no matter if she is from my party or not.”

[Demsrule86]

26. It won't work. The top of the ticket always affects down ticket.

[Demsrule86]

25. If Sanders is the nominee...there is nothing we can do...Hubs has the right of return to Ireland...

Southern Ireland which is still part of the UK...I think we may pack up and go. I have a Gay daughter. She is not safe in Trump's America.

[Lordquinton]

28. Excuse me?

You're saying you're going to leave the country is Bernie is elected? That is gross and appalling
.

[Desert grandma]

34. No.

She said they would leave if Bernie got the nomination, because they, along with many of us think that would give Trump 4 more years.
I think Russia is hoping Bernie gets the nomination, because there is no way we see him carrying those states we need to win. Biden polls the best against Trump. Why don't people see that we took the House in 2018 because we ran moderate/centrist candidates. Those progressive candidates that Bernie supported for the most part lost. That should have sent a message.

[evertonfc]

30. They know Sanders

will kill our Senate chances and we will lose House seats. They don't want to mention Sanders- Yet

[onecaliberal]

32. A Russian operative is occupying the highest office in the land

Bernie is not the enemy

[Hoyt]

33. I get it. But that wouldn't help. trump II and House at risk.