And that would have done nothing but rehabilitate Lenin.
That is because of the mindless content of the TP’s politics. Progressive politics are not mindless.
No, it’s because of the lack of any compromise whatsoever. Their content isn’t necessarily all that much worse than mainstream Republicanism - the lack of compromise, on the other hand…
He’s spoiling the expectations of voters. Hillary is not going to get them a 15 dollar minimum wage or free college or universal healthcare, but she might get ten and pass some fixes to Obamacare and try to reform student loans and the Bernie bros will still see it as a failure. Look at the OP and his description of the disappointment with Obama, who didn’t even have to deal with a candidate promising a whole bunch of shit he had no chance of delivering. He’s spoiling the party by training them to have incredibly unrealistic expectations.
:rolleyes: No, it’s not that at all.
From Listen, Liberal; Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank:
Well, there is a mandate for at least some of those things now, if you look at issue-specific polling questions. Most Americans want single-payer health care, etc., or at least will say so if asked.
See post #285. The time for compromise is past. The PTB will compromise about anything but what they care about, which usually has to do with their money, and on that they will compromise not at all. You do things Obama’s way – and do you have any doubt Clinton will? – then you get Obama’s results, with things like a health-care plan that only enables and enriches the rent-seeking health-insurance industry. That won’t do, we do not merely want but need a great deal more than that.
Yes, this. Apologies if this has already been posted, but Kevin Drum wrote a great pieceon Mother Jones about how Bernie has basically been running a con, like a weight loss pill you might see advertised on late night TV.
And they will be right to see it as a failure. Fixes around the edges are not going to do anything at all to solve America’s real problems.
Compromise is how the government works. It is the ONLY way it works. This guys complaint seems to be “wait, he was serious about that compromise shit?”, which is a fucking positive and not something we should discourage.
Of course people want those things, me included. But when a guy is telling you he can deliver them he is either delusional or bullshiting you.
And that is exactly why it is not a blunder to ignore them. It is in fact the healthiest and smartest move for the party.
Probably. Odds are. And odds could be better. Not just with his full throated support but without having to expend resources (time and energy, not just money) in California, which will not be in play.
And while Clinton’s favorables to unfavorables are significantly better than Trump’s they are could still use some help being pushed up not brought down.
Finally spoiling the potential improvements in Congress. He indeed has engaged some people who are usual non-voters. They might stay engaged with his team’s serious efforts for President but without it many more will just stay home. Yeah, Clinton will likely win without 'em but there are many races down the ticket, both in Congress and at state levels, that can be won with high turnout of those voters. This is not the population that will come out to vote just for those downticket candidates.
Thank you providing some support for what I have been saying! From your quote:
Shit. He was actually telling the truth. No one expected that! He actually really believed what he was saying he believed. How dare he! What a disappointment!
Maybe that is the disconnect. I believed him and have been very pleased.
Of course I also do not believe that this country is fundamentally broken like some here do. I see that it as a functioning machine that needs some parts replaced and some upgrades and that it is in fact doing modestly well dealing with a drastically changing and very challenging world. I believe we are very lucky to have had Obama during this period of time and hope that Clinton will continue the good work.
But not for the country.
You are ignoring the part that matters:
And how can we expect anything different from Clinton?
This.
We can’t, because we are not voting for kings. The problem is you think it is their fault and that Bernie would do better when he in fact would do a lot worse.
Cite?
Obama burned every bit of his political capital, and many Representatives and Senators did the same, to get through a massive change in health insurance, a change that will someday lead to a system of health care that is similar to most other industrialized first-world nations. Even that little step forward has been fought tooth and nail for the last six years. But that’s not enough.
I agree with a lot of Sanders’ goals. Those goals, even if Sanders is elected President, are mostly unachievable right now. Those goals have to be reached incrementally. FDR’s massive changes, and the Democrats who passed that platform, were in a special situation in American history. A situation that we are not in right now, and that I hope we are never in again.
Barring that, we have to work at things piecemeal; two steps forward, one step back, two forward. It’s the nature of American politics.
I think we have some serious issues, but I also don’t ignore things like the huge changes the ACA wrought. So yes, we have been lucky to have someone as measured as Obama, and Clinton will, in my opinion, work in the same vein.
Here is the text of his 2008 Cooper Union speech.
I’ve reread that speech now a few times and I see nothing in there that could in any way be described as things to reel in the suckers. Did he accomplish everything on that list? No. But as advertised the items he went through in that economic policy speech were what he tried and to some significant degrees accomplished.
It was a speech focused on pragmatic solutions.
Two years later he returned to the same stage; transcript here:
So simply put, WTF is Thomas Frank going on about other than that he was horrified that Obama actually meant what he said?
I do not expect anything different from Clinton.
Oh on this.
And polls showed that more than half of Americans supported Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States.
Amazing the things people will say when asked about something that they have not fully analyzed or been given full information about.
Do you want this yummy brownie? Why yes I do. Do you want this yummy brownie that costs $7.99 and has more calories than you need for the whole day? Well, maybe not after all. Do you want to spend all your energy trying to make a yummy brownie that you probably do not have all the ingredients for and not spend time and energy making the main course and sides to eat, or be satisfied with the cake we already bought instead?
Some details on how that brownie example plays out for single payer health care.
First, “most Americans” do not endorse single payer … without details a slim plurality does 39 to 33.
Flips to 39 against to only 28 for if such means that their taxes would increase to pay for it.
And illustrating that people are answering without really understanding … also 39 against to 28 for if single payer meant that people had to give up their employer sponsored plans!