As with any candidate, I don’t agree with many of his positions. But I have to apply a reality filter to those positions. Some have no chance of becoming policy. Some will never be attempted. Some will result in compromises that I may or may not like. But I’m having trouble with that analysis.
Could you be more specific?
With a Republican Congress, it’s all about how much you trust a candidate to do foreign policy well and to competently run the government. Clinton has more experience with the former, Sanders the latter.
You put “Republican Congress” and “competently run the government” in the same sentence. That’s so cute!
Congress doesn’t run the government. It provides oversight. The executive branch runs the government, and the executive branch has only a single elected official responsible for it.
Then why do you keep telling us the Presidency doesn’t matter all that much? Does that depend on the party of its occupant? 
You don’t think looking over Bill’s shoulder for eight years is good experience?
It doesn’t matter that much if your ambition is to pass legislation. In other words, if your ambition is to tell someone else how to do their job when you aren’t their boss, being President is about the most inconsequential thing you can do. If your ambition is to do your own job well, then you can make the Presidency matter. Sanders was known for fixing potholes and making government services run well as mayor of Burlington. Well, there’s a heck of a lot of gaping “potholes” in the federal government, starting with the VA. Since I’m sure a self-declared socialist is going to want to make the country’s only NHS-style system work well, he’ll probably make it a high priority. He’ll also probably want to fix procurement procedures(especially at DoD). Lots of consequential stuff for Sanders to do without bothering Congress.
Heh. Better than most peoples’ experience, but despite her arguments, not superior to being an actual executive. I’m sure Clinton knows how to get a pothole fixed. But she’s never been responsible for fixing one. Everyone knows how to lead until they actually have to do it. Clinton is PREPARED to be a leader, but she can’t match the executive experience of her Democratic opponents.
I’ve seen no evidence in American history that presidents with executive experience are better than presidents without.
Get it dominated by demonizing, tantrum-throwing ideologues?
Not to most of the electorate.
Care to put that in prose instead of poetry? So it can be understood?
Unfortunately, I do know why, even if I may attribute a different reason than you’d like.
You can make fun of providing peace and prosperity if you like. But most would consider those the basic requirements in the job description. However, I’m sure Bernie would do better because, well, reasons, right?
Yes, you’ve trapped yourself in that bit of rhetoric, haven’t you? So, what other stunts have worked on you? And - you know it’s coming, don’t you? - what stunt might be working on you right now? :dubious:
:shrug: Tell the pollsters.
That was one of Limbaugh’s favorite talking points in the 90’s, that only a minority had voted for Bubba. At some point the Sanders disciples will work through the entire Fox repertoire, won’t you?
If that’s what it takes to push the Overton Window leftward, let’s do it.
Well, that actually depends on your perspective.
The US provides government healthcare through Medicare, Medicaid etc to 28 % of the population. This costs more per citizen (not per patient) than the vast majority of first world nations pay to provide healthcare to 100% of the population.
In some cases, like the UK, the difference is quite large. Adjusted for population it is considerably cheaper for the UK to provide free at the point of delivery healthcare to everyone, than it is for the US to provide health care to 28 % of the population.
From the perspective of an American citizen, the population of the rest of the developed world pay no more, get universal healthcare, and there are money left over for other things. That is, from the American perspective, free.
Yes, look at Greece. They don’t want to pay taxes for the stuff they have their government provide for them, so they’ve run a deficit. Who does that sound like?
Its not about what the government delivered, its about the unwillingness to pay for it.
Which Presidents, in your opinion, have been the best Presidents, not counting legislation passed during their terms?
Why that restraint? Teddy Roosevelt sponsored laws to save natural areas.
Because we’re trying to isolate the executive functions of the office, since a Democratic President is going to be almost entirely shut out of the legislative process. So the strategy of Democrats should be to elect a skilled and competent executive, rather than someone with big dreams of new laws that will never pass.
What even a lot of Sanders fans might not know is that Sanders is actually pretty well qualified in that department. More qualified than Clinton, IMO. O’Malley of course has them both beat by a wide margin.
I’m a supporter and I picked ‘no’ because he will not have a cooperative congress.
If the congress actually wanted to enact Sander’s agenda, and the democrats had the majority, and the president of the senate changed the filibuster rules then Sanders would be a great president.
In the real world with real politicians, if he wins all he can do is talk.
Plus I wonder if pushing for too many reforms too fast will cause problems. Raising the minimum wage is fine, but you’d probably have to do it by $0.50 a year or so so businesses can adjust. If Sanders passed his ideas, they would need to be phased in over years rather than just implemented quickly.
Um, the country’s first socialist President could kinda fix the country’s only NHS-style system that’s currently broken and call himself a success.
:shrug: Maybe. It might be better than the present situation. The GOP’s strategy of demonization is wicked brilliant, actually. If you make your base think that your enemy is too evil, too stupid, too perverse to even listen to, you can keep your base from accepting any compromise. But no, that’s not what I want for the country. You’re right. I want a successful counter to them.
So the Left need a shift in strategy to counter that. Is nominating the wife of a former President who never held onto a majority a new strategy, or doing the same thing and begging to lose in the same way?
In a war fought with words, words are our missiles. Didn’t you admit that Sanders gives a good speech? That’s actually how you get the job.
You know who else gave a good speech? Yep, him. Him, too. And it worked, didn’t it? They changed the course of their nations. So, if countries can be wrecked by silver-tongued devils, then those who would save it probably must become masters of rhetoric as well.
Florence King once said that Americans take the lessons of history, turn them backwards, and make them words to live by. “If Mussolini made the trains run on time, then that means that late is good.” :rolleyes:
So, if Hitler and Reagan were likeable, charming, and kind to small children and animals, I suppose a Democrat wants a candidate who kicks dogs. If the GOP have passion and litmus tests, the Democrats want to have a platform with almost nothing in it, and a candidate who waits for the polls to have an opinion. That won’t help.
Democrats lose consistently, and constantly react to Republicans, or to their own “Blue Dogs,” even when in power. Republicans win consistently, and set agenda. Democrats don’t know how to win, nor how to behave when they win, and they never stay in power for long.
And this is despite half the country voting Democrat!
Heh. Nice riposte. But you know that HRC was a long-known figure in a way BHO was not.
:rolleyes: Well, you know me, I like strong women. I’m trying to resist the lure of a female President. Fortunately, the Yankee version of Cristina Kirchner makes that absurdly easy.