# God damn it, Democrats! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 28, 2016, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592 "2016-06-28T05:08:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/41 "2016-06-28T18:14:21Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > These are just election tactics. The Democrats actually support liberal politics, they just won’t say so during an election because they don’t want to lose votes, and won’t actually do anything in office because they don’t want to lose votes. But in their hearts you know they support every liberal cause as long as it doesn’t cost them any votes. I think there’s often that kind of thing going on with the Democrats, especially with Clinton herself, but these platform changes are less about liberal vs. moderate than elites vs. the activist base. The party mainstream is genuinely pro-Israel, genuinely pro-free trade, and genuinely pro-fracking(to an extent). The lefties on the other hand are just listening to whoever complains the loudest and sounds aggrieved enough and also agrees to back the interests of the other members of the coalition. However, I just have to note again that Clinton is lying through her teeth about TPP and everyone with two brain cells has to know it. The platform fight over TPP only further proves it. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/42 "2016-06-28T18:20:13Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Yeah, you’re right, Ulf, I should have clarified what I had posted. The actual platform committee meets to vote on planks at the convention, but this is the committee that is drafting the platform. Thanks, Rick. As I said, that headline wasn’t exactly making it easy on you…😉 ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/43 "2016-06-28T18:26:54Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Is there a reason you’re being an asshole, or is it just your default? It’s my default AND there is a reason! You post garbage links all the damned time, from garbage websites. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/44 "2016-06-28T18:30:19Z")
In other words, websites with which you disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/45 "2016-06-28T18:47:36Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > [Despite assurances to contrary, intellectual property covered asset for TPP ISDS mechanism](http://www.keionline.org/node/2358) > > … > > Good enough start for a global trade agreement negotiated in secret (meaning that unless one was invited, one had no input on potentially harmful provisions, and those invited were only from a few select industries) and rushed into signing? By the way, my quote on the negligible benefits was from the United States International Trade Commission. I don’t know enought about this to have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that most of this is complaining about are provisions that protect the status quo rather than things that the TPP will actually change. So they seem to be less problems that will be created by the TPP and more problems that the TPP is unfortunately not going to fix. Absent a TPP, will Malaysia suddenly decide to stop blocking internet? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/46 "2016-06-28T18:51:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Progressives have to learn to accept the reality that moderates exist. We didn’t steal your party; it doesn’t belong to you. > > Progressives need to make a choice. Do you want to work with moderates, be part of a party in power, and get some of what you want? Or do you want to go off on your own and get nothing? What part of “get some of what you want” did the progressives here get again? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/47 "2016-06-28T19:00:57Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > In other words, websites with which you disagree. Sloppy, lazy, breathless, idiotic websites that make no effort to fact check. You post from the left’s equivalent to Breitbart. It’s _embarrassing_. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/48 "2016-06-28T19:04:45Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > In other words, websites with which you disagree. No, they are, in fact, garbage links from garbage websites, which are repeatedly shown to be misleading, exaggerations, or lies. You are perhaps the most untrustworthy poster in political threads here, and you’ve overcome steep opposition to earn that label. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/49 "2016-06-28T19:10:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What part of “get some of what you want” did the progressives here get again? Everything any minor-fraction party or faction gets? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/50 "2016-06-28T19:12:40Z")
What’s wrong with the OP’s cite? The main site doesn’t seem to have too much in the way of seriousness, but it heavily cites better sources like [Commondreams.org](http://Commondreams.org) and the Bernie Sanders campaign. I’ve never had an issue with any of Rick Kitchen’s cites. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/51 "2016-06-28T19:19:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What part of “get some of what you want” did the progressives here get again? Did you read what the OP linked to? Despite her best efforts to convince us all that the Dems “betrayed” progressives with every single decision, even that writer eventually admitted that there were several very progressive recommendations made by this committee. I don’t blame you if you didn’t read that far, as journalism generally does not recommend putting important stuff into the eleventh paragraph; then again, “Films for Action” is not truly journalism, so there’s that. Anyway: Progressives got a plank stating that the big banks should be broken up. They got a recommendation that a “modern-day form” of Glass Steagall should be passed. They got a statement supporting a $15/hour minimum wage. They got a strong statement against the death penalty. And, as I mentioned earlier, there are many other planks in the Democratic platform that are quite progressive: voting rights, women’s health, gay rights, gun issues, and on and on and on. I know we have at least a couple of self-described progressives here on this board who don’t seem to care especially about these issues, and maybe you are one of them, but it seems quite clear to me that issues like these are at the core of what it means to be progressive. So, the answer to your question would be, “They got a lot of things.” No, not everything, but they did okay. They certainly weren’t shut out altogether. It’s kind of too bad that the linked piece tried so hard to say otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/52 "2016-06-28T19:24:51Z")
> [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > 🙂 > > By the way, the OP calls the actions in question those of the “platform committee,” which of course it isn’t. That committee has yet to meet. This was the work of a drafting committee, which serves in an advisory capacity. The actual committee may, or may not, choose to go with the positions decided on by the majority of this group. > > I don’t blame the OP for making this error, especially; the headline on the “article,” after all, refers to the “DNC Platform.” You have to actually read the text to realize that this isn’t a done deal. (Not that the text exactly emphasizes it either.) Yet another way in which “Films for Action” chooses to avoid being reality-based. Ah well. It’s really interesting to just google democratic platform 2016 and see the different headlines for this development. > [@](#): > > Here’s what Bernie Sanders has won in the Democratic platform (so far) > Washington Post‎ - 1 day ago > [@](#): > > The Clinton Campaign Is Obstructing Change to the Democratic Platform > POLITICO Magazine‎ - 1 day ago And my personal favorite: > [@](#): > > Dem Party Platform Calls For Prosecuting Global Warming Skeptics > Daily Caller‎ - 1 day ago ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/53 "2016-06-28T19:26:39Z")
OK, just for instance, lets take the $15 minimum wage. It is not so much the thing itself but the _intent_ of the thing. What are we trying to accomplish? To relieve the burden on our less affluent citizens, obviously. To put money in the hands of people who will spend it, a little less obvious. The kind of intent that ought to gladden the shriveled hearts of corporate America, or at least those smart enough to realize that a consumer economy depends upon consumers having money. _Très_ duh, _mais non?_ Can we sell it? Obviously, we can sell it to people who are working full time for less. And, of course, there are a lot of people who don’t see it that way, who only see it as drastically raising the pay of laggards and lay-abouts. Lets just suppose, for the sake of our hypothetical, that theres so many of them, selling the program becomes impossible. Not saying it is, just saying “what if?”. The\* intent\* is to make life easier for our people, with the added benefit of spurring our economy. Is there another way, one that might be more attractive? Well, ok, how about subsidized child care, make it easier for parents to work and be rewarded? Also, _leaving_ more money in their hands rather than _putting_ more there. Selling benefits for crumb-snatching rug rats is an easier sell. So, maybe. How would we know, who can we ask? Academic economics is one source, but is often questionable. As time has gone, the progressives have a stronger case to make, social democracy is functional, and in many ways, more efficient than rat-race based economics. But academic economics is not something divorced from politics, one cannot embrace an economic opinion as fact. How many economic academics are funded by people like the Koch Brothers, who already know to a certainty what the truth is, and seek intelligent persons to teach it. Anyway, utterly reliable expertise is not available. We are going to be guessing, to some degree or another. So, if we can’t have both subsidized child care and a major advance in minimum wage, can we cobble together a bit of both, a compromise we can sell? And if we can sell it, and gain the power advantage necessary to implement it, can we adjust it if it falters? Yes, we can. If we win. If we lose, we can’t do much of anything except cuss and spit teeth. Don’t say “$15 an hour or bust!” say, “We should raise the minimum wage!” Don’t say “Medicare for all!” say “We may need to expand and adjust the ACA”. Of course, we have every intention to doing exactly that, but we _may_ need to! Because we already need to, but no reason to bore people with lengthy explanations. I have a maxim: Cold mind, warm heart. Examine the situation ruthlessly, distill the facts down to the cold nuts. Use that information to inform your heartfelt goals, so that you may proceed to progress in the most efficient ways possible. If I thought a Cornell West/Bernie Sanders platform would sweep the Progressives into power, I would love it. Kinda do anyway, that’s where my sentiments lie. But I am not convinced we can sell it. And if we can’t, its little more than a self-righteous exercise. Fuck _that_ shit! There is great confusion under Heaven, and the situation is excellent, as Herbert Hoover once posted on Facebook. The Goddess, in Her sublime wisdom, has placed the opportunity in our hands, a chance to kick the Forces of Darkness right in the 'nads. We should act in classic liberal fashion: demand the impossible, settle for the probable, swear we will never ask for anything else again, and start laying the groundwork to do exactly that. Brothers and sisters, pals and gals, _forward_! ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/54 "2016-06-28T19:32:12Z")
> [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > They got a recommendation that a “modern-day form” of Glass Steagall should be passed. > > They got a statement supporting a $15/hour minimum wage. > > They got a strong statement against the death penalty. None of which are planks. Indeed the $15 minimum wage was voted down making a “statement” seem a bit thin. > [@](#): > > The representatives appointed by Hillary Clinton to the Democratic Party’s platform drafting committee voted against a $15 minimum wage amendment on Friday. > > The five representatives who were appointed by Clinton’s presidential opponent, Bernie Sanders, supported the amendment. > > The proposal was defeated eight-to-six. The only person on the committee aside from Sanders’ surrogates who supported the amendment was California Rep. Barbara Lee. > > SOURCE: [http://www.salon.com/2016/06/25/clinton\_appointees\_oppose\_15\_minimum\_wage\_amendment\_in\_democratic\_platform\_sanders\_surrogates\_back\_it/?utm\_source=twitter&utm\_medium=socialflow](http://www.salon.com/2016/06/25/clinton_appointees_oppose_15_minimum_wage_amendment_in_democratic_platform_sanders_surrogates_back_it/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow) I am curious which parts you think are throwing a bone to the progressives as opposed to which parts the DNC would have done anyway? Notably they shot down opposition to the TPP even though both candidates are on record taking positions opposed to the TPP. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/55 "2016-06-28T19:44:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If I thought a Cornell West/Bernie Sanders platform would sweep the Progressives into power, I would love it. Kinda do anyway, that’s where my sentiments lie. But I am not convinced we can sell it. And if we can’t, its little more than a self-righteous exercise. Fuck _that_ shit! > > There is great confusion under Heaven, and the situation is excellent, as Herbert Hoover once posted on Facebook. The Goddess, in Her sublime wisdom, has placed the opportunity in our hands, a chance to kick the Forces of Darkness right in the 'nads. We should act in classic liberal fashion: demand the impossible, settle for the probable, swear we will never ask for anything else again, and start laying the groundwork to do exactly that. > > Brothers and sisters, pals and gals, _forward_! This has been a recurring theme that Sanders can’t do what he wants but Clinton can get what she wants because she has…something. Why on earth would anyone think Clinton can get things done that Sanders can’t? Because her proposals are more middle-of-the-road? Obama has already tried that for the last 11.5 years. He has had precious little success with it. If there is one person republicans hate more than Obama it is Clinton. They despise her with a cold hatred that goes far beyond anything they have felt for Obama. There is no guessing at this either. Today the House just gave their report on Benghazi. How many investigations of Benghazi does that make against Clinton? Seven probes and 21 hearings? And that is JUST Benghazi. Do you want a laundry list of all the other probes and investigations they have leveled at the Clintons? It is mystifying and most are bullshit but they certainly try. Republicans will probably do little more during a Clinton term than try to find ways to impeach her. It is absolutely wishful thinking to suppose that Clinton, of all people, will have a magical ability to get our divided congress to start working together. The chances are much greater that she will be even more divisive unless you can make a case that republicans will out of the blue bury the hatchet and play nice with her. ---
**Author:** ![Biotop](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biotop/32/321_2.png) [@Biotop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biotop)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/56 "2016-06-28T19:53:54Z")
Republicans are about to pay a steep price for their obstructionist policies of the last 8 years. Will they learn anything from it? Doubtful. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/57 "2016-06-28T20:40:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Indeed the $15 minimum wage was voted down making a “statement” seem a bit thin. The $15 minimum wage was NOT “voted down.” I have no idea where you are getting this from. Even the progressives-are-being-BETRAYED link in the OP recognized that the measure had been approved. If you don’t believe that, try “The Hill,” [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284888-democratic-platform-draft-shows-sanderss-clout](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284888-democratic-platform-draft-shows-sanderss-clout), or perhaps you would prefer the statement of “Fight for 15” itself, [Fight For A Union](http://fightfor15.org/democratic-party-adopts-15-national-minimum-wage-to-party-platform/). Now, the recommendation did not index the minimum wage to inflation, which apparently has some people up in arms. Then again, I can’t remember Sanders saying “We’re going to get a $15 an hour minimum wage, and we’re going to index it to inflation!” We’re not moving the goalposts here, are we? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am curious which parts you think are throwing a bone to the progressives as opposed to which parts the DNC would have done anyway? I have no idea, and what difference does it make anyway? Are you arguing that it doesn’t count if the DNC would’ve done it anyway? That seems very peculiar. Your question was what the progressives got that they wanted. Clearly, they got a decent amount of what they have been saying they wanted. Surely you’re not saying that the Sanders forces did not actually _want_ a higher minimum wage, or a recommendation for a new Glass Steagall Act? In any case, if I had a nickel for every time Sanders talked about Glass Steagall and breaking up the banks I’d be a hell of a lot richer than I am. That was in many ways the centerpiece of his campaign. It seems very odd to describe recommending this for the platform as “throwing a bone” to the progressive movement. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/58 "2016-06-28T20:51:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This has been a recurring theme that Sanders can’t do what he wants but Clinton can get what she wants because she has…something. > > Why on earth would anyone think Clinton can get things done that Sanders can’t? Because her proposals are more middle-of-the-road? Obama has already tried that for the last 11.5 years. He has had precious little success with it. > > If there is one person republicans hate more than Obama it is Clinton. They despise her with a cold hatred that goes far beyond anything they have felt for Obama. There is no guessing at this either. Today the House just gave their report on Benghazi. How many investigations of Benghazi does that make against Clinton? Seven probes and 21 hearings? And that is JUST Benghazi. Do you want a laundry list of all the other probes and investigations they have leveled at the Clintons? It is mystifying and most are bullshit but they certainly try. > > Republicans will probably do little more during a Clinton term than try to find ways to impeach her. It is absolutely wishful thinking to suppose that Clinton, of all people, will have a magical ability to get our divided congress to start working together. The chances are much greater that she will be even more divisive unless you can make a case that republicans will out of the blue bury the hatchet and play nice with her. Personally, I don’t believe that Clinton would work better with the Republicans than Sanders would. It’s also fair to say that this isn’t an argument I have heard much. The argument I HAVE heard, and the one I DO buy, is the argument that says that Clinton would do much better with the Democrats than Sanders would. Obama’s Iran deal is an excellent example: he used his political capital among Dems in Congress to twist arms, to make promises, to push people to support his agenda even when they were worried they might be better off voting no. He could do that because he HAD political capital; he was/is popular among the rank and file, and his help was/is appreciated (and his ability to punish was/is significant). Clinton will be able to do that too, perhaps even more than Obama was. Sanders, on the other hand…? He was endorsed by, what, one Senator and eight representatives? He doesn’t play the game, either because he doesn’t choose to or because he doesn’t know how; and that would have left him with virtually no strong supporters in Congress, no lieutenants to speak of, very few people who would be willing to go to the mat for him. Obviously, if the Democrats get a majority in both houses of Congress Clinton’s ability to corral and manage members will be more significant than if the GOP holds onto control. But as the Iran example shows, there are definitely times when a Democratic president in a GOP-controlled Congress benefits from having that political capital. And there’s no question that Clinton has it all over Sanders in that department. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/59 "2016-06-28T21:38:45Z")
> [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > The $15 minimum wage was NOT “voted down.” I have no idea where you are getting this from. > > \ > > Now, the recommendation did not index the minimum wage to inflation, which apparently has some people up in arms. Then again, I can’t remember Sanders saying “We’re going to get a $15 an hour minimum wage, and we’re going to index it to inflation!” We’re not moving the goalposts here, are we? I linked where I got it from in my post and it notes it was for an indexed minimum wage. > [@](#): > > Clinton’s representatives argued the platform already expresses support for a $15 minimum wage, although the language is weak and offers no mechanism for getting there. Sanders’ supporters called for the explicit demand of an indexed $15 federal minimum wage. > > Rep. Keith Ellison, who was appointed to the committee by Sanders, proposed an amendment to the DNC’s platform that would make support for a $15 per hour federal minimum wage absolutely unambiguous. > > The platform originally simply stated that the Democratic Party hopes to “raise and index the minimum wage,” with an earlier implication that this could be $15. Ellison proposed that the language be made clearer and stronger, changed from mere support to a demand to “raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and index it.” > > The audience attending the public hearing applauded in response to Rep. Ellison’s amendment. > > SOURCE: [http://www.salon.com/2016/06/25/clinton\_appointees\_oppose\_15\_minimum\_wage\_amendment\_in\_democratic\_platform\_sanders\_surrogates\_back\_it/?utm\_source=twitter&utm\_medium=socialflow](http://www.salon.com/2016/06/25/clinton_appointees_oppose_15_minimum_wage_amendment_in_democratic_platform_sanders_surrogates_back_it/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow) > [@](#): > > I have no idea, and what difference does it make anyway? Are you arguing that it doesn’t count if the DNC would’ve done it anyway? That seems very peculiar. Your question was what the progressives got that they wanted. Clearly, they got a decent amount of what they have been saying they wanted. Surely you’re not saying that the Sanders forces did not actually _want_ a higher minimum wage, or a recommendation for a new Glass Steagall Act? > > In any case, if I had a nickel for every time Sanders talked about Glass Steagall and breaking up the banks I’d be a hell of a lot richer than I am. That was in many ways the centerpiece of his campaign. It seems very odd to describe recommending this for the platform as “throwing a bone” to the progressive movement. Absolutely it makes a difference. Of course there are places both sides agree upon already. Clinton supporters don’t get to say they gave a concession to the Sanders people on (say) abortion (now go sit in a corner and say nice things about Clinton) because they both already agreed on the issue. That is not what “concession” means. Remember even the planks are not binding and mere recommendations. A “recommendation” has no teeth. Right up there with Clinton telling Wall Street to [“Cut it out.”](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-told-wall-street-to-cut-it-out-not-so-much-the-record-shows-213363) With such firm, bedrock finger-wagging this is bound to happen right? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2016, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592/60 "2016-06-28T22:07:39Z")
> [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > The argument I HAVE heard, and the one I DO buy, is the argument that says that Clinton would do much better with the Democrats than Sanders would. Sanders’ legislative record is as good as Clinton’s when it comes to effectiveness in Congress. Depends how you slice it but neither was outstanding and neither was poor at it (although in when it came to roll call amendments [Sanders reigned supreme](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/)). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-damn-it-democrats/758592.md?page=4)