Except Obama was never a liberal other than in the conservative definition of the term ie anyone who isn’t a hardcore conservative is, by default, a hardcore liberal. Obama is pretty much a centrist moderate and he was working on a centrist moderate agenda.
Sanders, on the other hand, really is a liberal and would be working on a liberal agenda.
Hey, don’t rain on my parade.
Nightmare, IMHO. Basically, same as if any of the various Republican right winger types got elected along with enough of a majority to push through their loopier programs, steam rolling over the moderates and left wingers. What would happen is that when the worm turned we’d have more of the same we have had in Obama’s administration…Republicans blocking everything they can, digging in even more and the dysfunction growing. What we need is a president who can and will work with the whole Congress, and have the political chops and capital to get some bipartisan support for broad based programs, not niche bullshit that make lefties or righties cream their jeans.
Of course, it’s extremely unlikely that Sanders would both be elected AND the Dems would get a super majority AND they would be socialist types who would not only work with Bernie boy but also have the fervent fever to push through all they can. More likely is Bernie gets elected and, hopefully, has the chops and capital and intelligence to focus on stuff that has a chance of getting through the real world Congress we actually have, instead of the fantasy Congress of threads like this. That’s what we need, IMHO…some one and some party to be the bigger person and put the country first and reach across to work with the folks across the isle.
I don’t believe Bernie is that guy (and, afaict, NONE of the Republicans are that guy either), but it wouldn’t be a nightmare if he got elected. He actually might be better than Obama in that he’s got more connections and more capital to spend. Clinton, however, I think IS that person, at least that’s my hope. I hope she has the chops, I think she has the favors and capital, and I really hope much of her campaign will basically be for the consumption of the Dems in the primary, and that like her hubby she will run to the center as soon as she is elected…and that like hubby she will actually be able to work, somewhat, with ALL of the Congress, or at least enough of it to get something done. Or, maybe it’s too late for that and we are all fucked and the way it is now is just the new normal. 
OP speaks of a Democratic Party majority, not of a “fantasy Congress” run by Independent Socialists like Sanders.
Yet many or most in the thread assumed that “Dem majority” meant 90% tax rates and Greek-style economy(*). Pullleeeeze. I thought this was supposed to be an intelligent board.
(* - Yes, 90% tax rate and Greek-style economy are contradictory: Greece’s problem was taxes that were too low. But consistency is not a priority among the screeching detractors here.)
The posts that suggest that Bernie would get any of his programs passed intrigue me. Bernie, while hardly the “socialist” of the nightmares of the Tea Party, (most of whom do not even understand socialism), Bernie is still further Left than the overwhelming majority of Democrats seeking Congressional seats. He might nudge Congress a little bit to the Left, but he would not accomplish any great Leftward Tilt of the nation.
I have no idea where this 90% thingy is coming from…this is the second thread it was brought up in and I’ve yet to see a cite. Certainly I never said anything about it, so kind of a strawman on your part.
What I did say is that it would be a nightmare because what we don’t need, IMHO, is a president from either party that also has an overwhelming Congressional support ramming through whatever they want over the other party…which seems to be what the OP is asking (the socialist congress part was riffing on what others were saying, so if it’s just a ‘Dem majority’ then he wouldn’t be able to have the support to get his entire agenda through anyway, since the moderate Dems and the Republicans would probably be enough to sink anything that they don’t like). I’d say the same thing if the OP was about one of the right winger Republicans backed by a Republican house and senate with enough support to push whatever they want. Whether you think this is intelligent or not is fine, but at least if you are going to question my post actually question what I’m saying, not what you seem to think I am. Feel free to shred what I write.
Yes but you have to work with the premise. If Bernie Sanders won the presidency and the Democrats won a majority in both halves of Congress, it would indicate a major shift in public opinion. The newly elected Democrats in Congress would presumably by Bernie-crats and the existing Democrats would tend to give some weight to this movement.
So under the conditions the OP described, however unlikely they might appear, I think President Sanders would have a decent chance of getting a substantial portion of his platform enacted into law. The big exception would be his desire for campaign financing reform - I feel there’s virtually no chance of convincing a majority of Congressmen to give up the legal bribery they receive.
But what if he had a Mind Control Ray? Or what if all Republicans decided to stop voting for ten years in protest?
If you have an unrealistic scenario, you work with the unrealistic scenario. What’s intriguing about that?
Absolutely nothing. The democrats have no real interest in progressive legislation because doing so will step on the toes of the rich and powerful. Democrats talk a big game but when push comes to shove they are very timid and loyal to the plutocrats.
That isn’t to say there aren’t democrats who are true blue progressives, but they are maybe 1/3 of the caucus.
For me the big appeal of a president Sanders is hopefully he will let the democrats know they can’t take their voters for granted anymore. They can’t just ‘pretend’ to care about income inequality while still serving the rich, they have to actually walk the walk.
Part of me wonders if Sanders ever thought he had a realistic chance, and wonders how he is responding to all of this. He is doing well in some primary states and due to demographics the democrat should have a good chance in 2016.
It’s unrealistic enough to think he’d even beat Hillary at this point. 
The rest is just over the top really, but folks love to do wild ‘what if’ speculation. I mean, what if Zombie Ronald Reagan runs against the Ghost of FDR and they fight it out in a cage match ref’ed by Elvis?? :eek: Could happen…
Totally there with you. Well, almost totally. As I said elsewhere, I look at Bernie’s chances like I look at free will. Both are almost certainly nonexistent, but pretending like they’re real leads us to act in a better way.
If Sanders enjoyed even slight majorities, he could get a lot done. Not nearly as much as he wants to, since in order for Democrats to have majorities they need Blue Dogs. A resurgence in Democratic fortunes would automatically mean a big comeback for the Blue Dogs. That’s just how the electoral map works barring major changes in the makeup of the electorate.
Things Bernie would get done with a Democratic Congress(I’m using Nemo’s list):
A substantial increase in the minimum wage.
Infrastructure repair.
A reduction of college expenses.
Increased funding for Veterans Affairs programs.
The rest of the items are probably not going to be done for various reasons. Health care and financial reform have already been done to most Democrats’ satisfaction and there’s no way Pelosi and Schumer are going to have THAT fight again, which would mean no action on other important priorities. Campaign finance reform is pointless due to constitutional limitations. What they can get done is barely worth doing, and NRA and unions don’t really want it so it just won’t be a priority.
I notice that climate change is not on that list. Whether intentional or not, it’s just not going to be a high priority beyond rhetoric. It’s the kind of issue where there are always about ten other more important things they’ll want to do. Climate change is the kind of thing that can only get done when Democrats are in power and satisfied with health care, education, immigration, and the economy.
And BTW, just because I’m adaher, what does it say about Obama’s legacy that two of his most cherished items are the very things Sanders and his supporters want to see pretty much overhauled from scratch?
Sanders’ platform talks about climate change (he’s against it) but it doesn’t seem to be one of his big issues. I get the feeling he would pretty much follow past Democratic Party policies on this issue.
Foreign policy is another area where Sanders doesn’t have a big plan. He offers general principles (war bad, peace good) but not much in specifics.
Sanders’ big concerns seem to be the economic issues I mentioned.
The only premise in the OP was that Sanders won and that the Democrats took control of both houses. There was nothing in the OP that indicated that some majority of candidates would have suddenly shifted the positions they have held for years. Given that in several states, recently, Democrats actually out-polled Republicans in congressional elections, only to take fewer seats based on the way that districts are arranged, I would find it more likely that there was just a small shift in opinions rather than some groundswell or tidal wave of new views.
You are free to include a massive opinion shift in your speculation, but I do not see any evidence for it.
I didn’t realize that Bernie planned to get rid of the US Dollar and have us use the Euro!
Seriously, absent that kind of dollarization (or pegging the dollar to gold or something), we’re not going to have the same crisis-level problems.
You are wrong about the “automatically.” A more progressively oriented Congress is going to happen with an ideological realignment of the Democratic Party, as new voters come in and reject the old coalition. The future of the Democratic Party is very likely more New Deal than Blue Dog.
It’s not 1980 anymore. There are a lot of young people who’ve gotten slammed economically by both parties. That’s Bernie’s base.
Oh, you can definitely get that kind of realignment, but it takes a candidate who can persuade. Sanders strikes me as a guy who can motivate the true believers, but isn’t likely to remake the party in his image. The last time that kind of realignment occurred, it took a 20% unemployment rate and a charismatic and fairly young(51) candidate. The circumstances and the candidate just don’t make for a realignment.
The outcome is the evidence. Unless magic pixie dust was involved, the election of Bernie Sanders to the Presidency would require over sixty million people to vote for him - and do so after choosing Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the primaries. If sixty million voters chose Sanders’ platform, that would be a significant shift in American politics. And when the way people vote shifts, politicians follow.
I want to hear more about this Mind Control Ray.
Liberal / progressive dream tuns in to Nightmare.