A Sane and Moral Choice for Prez

[MichaeltheGreat]

Although there are indeed a lot of naive Bernie fans, there's also an awful lot who are approaching it from a very different POV. Electing a President who aims for the stars obviously doesn't mean you're going to get everything you want, but its a much better starting negotiating position (when you have a national mandate) than starting from wanting tiny change and bidding down from there. Also its an opportunity to kick the Third Way Democrats in the nuts, which is always nice.

Bernie would never get a national mandate - he's never run in a real election before, never had the proctoscopic vetting treatment, and when the full GOP attack machine turned on him - just the usual "tax and spend" stuff, if he made it through that and won, it would be very close. Then he'd find that he couldn't get one bit of his agenda out of committee in either the Senate or the House. If Bernie had an agenda, rather than a stump speech. As he pointed out, he's been busy running, so he hasn't had time to figure how he'd actually do anything.

If you want a Bernista revolution, it has to be done the good ol' fashioned way - start with state legislative control, so you can ungerrymander congressional districts, and work your way up into a significant presence in Congress, then run your guy for President. That's actual work, though, not Bernie's one major demographic wants to be bothered with in the era of instant gratification.

[kentonio]

Bernie would never get a national mandate - he's never run in a real election before, never had the proctoscopic vetting treatment, and when the full GOP attack machine turned on him - just the usual "tax and spend" stuff, if he made it through that and won, it would be very close. Then he'd find that he couldn't get one bit of his agenda out of committee in either the Senate or the House. If Bernie had an agenda, rather than a stump speech. As he pointed out, he's been busy running, so he hasn't had time to figure how he'd actually do anything.

Meh, I've heard this enough times and its crap. He ran at state level as a radical independent against both major parties and consistently kicked the crap out of both. He did it by actually being a rather pragmatic and sensible politician who had no problem compromising and working across the aisle to work out solutions that actually worked and werent just ideological star-gazing. Go read what the Republicans in Vermont say about him, you might be surprised.

If you want a Bernista revolution, it has to be done the good ol' fashioned way - start with state legislative control, so you can ungerrymander congressional districts, and work your way up into a significant presence in Congress, then run your guy for President. That's actual work, though, not Bernie's one major demographic wants to be bothered with in the era of instant gratification.

Except this is again crap, because the 'start at the bottom' argument swiftly falls apart when the national party has the will and the means to cut down any attempts at grassroots progressive movement. Progressive Dems find themselves being denied access to voter rolls, find major national figures giving high profile endorsements and funding to the established encumbents and basically reduce the chances of changing the party from the bottom down to jack ****.

It's ironic that you should talk about 'instant gratification' though, given that the only reason Bernie entered this race was because progressive groups talked him into it to help raise some attention for progressive causes and to try and shift Hillary just slightly more to the left. His campaign was never about anything instant or particularly gratifying, just another small and grinding attempt to move the needle in a positive direction.

[Jon Miller]

The left really need some success down ballot. Bernie could do a real revolution if he starts the process that results in that success.

Bernie's revolution is all about the down ballot.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

so you can ungerrymander congressional districts,

Liberals whining about gerrymanders is the funniest thing ever.

[Berzerker]

As for racism, the Constitution as originally written only regarded white males as human beings.

that isn't true

[pchang]

Said the white male

[Berzerker]

I'm not a property owner so I couldn't vote

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

[pchang]

I'm not a property owner so I couldn't vote

At least you would be allowed to own land if you could come up with the money.

[Berzerker]

the Constitution doesn't limit owning property to white men nor does it say non-white men are not human

[Aeson]

The Constitution as originally intended and applied was horrific to the poor, women, and minorities ... especially blacks. Luckily the framers realized they didn't make a perfect document that could be directly applied to all cases, so included methods to interpret it and change it. On the whole those changes and interpretations have cleaned up a lot of the more inhumane aspects over time.

[Berzerker]

The Constitution doesn't mention men or women or white or black people, just persons... you didn't even have to be white to run for prez

[Aeson]

You're ignoring reality...

[Berzerker]

the constitution is colorblind and does not define black people as 3/5ths human or non-human and even slaves were called "persons", the same term for everyone else regardless of race or gender

[MichaeltheGreat]

Meh, I've heard this enough times and its crap. He ran at state level as a radical independent against both major parties and consistently kicked the crap out of both. He did it by actually being a rather pragmatic and sensible politician who had no problem compromising and working across the aisle to work out solutions that actually worked and werent just ideological star-gazing. Go read what the Republicans in Vermont say about him, you might be surprised.

Vermont is part of Canada, not the US. It's half hipsters and old Ben & Jerry hippies (the Burlington and Bennington crowd) and half rednecks with five teeth. Vermont Republicans are RINOs, they're not in the least reflective of the national party.

And other than being a decent mayor of a city of 50k people in a small, economically stagnant, tighty-whitey state, WTF has Bernie actually done? BTW, Vermont is the second highest taxed state in the US behind California. The difference is we actually have more than 50 miles of roads and we have an actual economy. Vermont has maple syrup, Ben & Jerry's and ski resorts for Masshol*s who want a weekend in the country.

Except this is again crap, because the 'start at the bottom' argument swiftly falls apart when the national party has the will and the means to cut down any attempts at grassroots progressive movement. Progressive Dems find themselves being denied access to voter rolls, find major national figures giving high profile endorsements and funding to the established encumbents and basically reduce the chances of changing the party from the bottom down to jack ****.

If there are enough progressives, and they're persistent enough, they will work the party. The GOP managed it from the other side - this sure as **** ain't Ike's and Ronnie's and Rockefeller's GOP. It's just that modern progressives aren't a pimple on the ass of people like John L Lewis or the people at Haymarket square. They're a mix of limousine liberals and do-nothings who want **** handed to them.

It's ironic that you should talk about 'instant gratification' though, given that the only reason Bernie entered this race was because progressive groups talked him into it to help raise some attention for progressive causes and to try and shift Hillary just slightly more to the left. His campaign was never about anything instant or particularly gratifying, just another small and grinding attempt to move the needle in a positive direction.

I'm talking about the Bernistas - the "free stuff" "make the rich pay their fair share" crowd of vacuous hipsters.