Reality Check - The Sanders loss.

1) Clinton would have gotten the nomination (regardless), it just would've been a closer contest.

2) Any "Disgruntled Bernie Voter"--Who either "sat it out" or voted 3rd Party (essentially) facilitated Trump's Election.

 

Sanders could choose to change to independent.

 

Its not a change. Its one of three pairs of shoes he owns. He wears a democratic socialist pair of when he wants to seem in vogue with progressives. He puts on his independent sneakers to successfully win in Vermont. He pulls his Democrat galoshes over the sneakers whenever he needs to get into the Democratic party debates and primaries, then he throws the galoshes in the back of the closet when the danger of mud puddles is gone.

 

This is his last chance to grab the golden ring and likely his last in the Senate too. Don't count on Bernie not to pull out all the stops to win.......even as an independent.

 

Progressives were able to roll back 40% of the GOP's seats that they took from Dems in 2010. They are highly motivated and working hard to get their message across to a broader spectrum of voters. The Progressive WINS in 2017 and 2018 are impressive.

 

I did not 'facilitate' Trump's election by voting green. It was strategic voting. I was virtually irrelevant to the process because Oregon is so blue, that had every single voter who voted green, or libertarian, or constitutional party all voted for trump, Hillary still would have won. You can add up all the non Dem/ GOP votes in my state and check it out. I am nothing if not a shrewd judge of my state's politics. I feel lucky that I could afford to vote my conscience, register my disapproval in the process, without any risk of doing harm. Most others outside the coastal states, had to decide whether to compromise or not.

The reason I am still a registered Democrat, is so that I can help choose my party's nominee and move my party in a solid and potent direction. If there is another farce in 2020, I will have to conclude that that advantage no longer exists in national politics. Why stay in a party without a serious primary for 90% of its members? That's a total fraud.

 

Just out of curiosity who do you like in the Dem primaries given that you now have significantly more choices than back in 2016?

 

Mostly I like the fact that I have significantly more choices! I want to see at least five or six survive past New Hampshire and at least 3-4 past super Tuesday to feel a healthy debate has happened. I am not so wrapped up in ideology as most people here. Whether it is a progressive or a moderate, the changes will have to be incremental because Congress is NOT progressive. Too many dems will come from swing or purple states, they will properly reflect a more moderate constituency so for all the Sanders/ Biden rhetoric, the real world won't reward Sanders with his progressive bill. I will pick someone who is as progressive as practical but who shows interest in fresh ideas, who has the intellectual gravitas to challenge conventional Washington wisdom, and the political skills and temperament to succeed. I am thinking Warren or Booker or Harris from the progressive wing or Gillibrand, or maybe Gov. John Hickenlooper from the center will be okay. Pete is just too green - yet!. O Rourke is just not impressing me.

Leaning toward Warren at the moment.

 

Harris was way too much baggage for my own liking. Booker is underestimated and could come on strong once people start finding out about him. I suspect that Warren has the inside track and I would be happy too see her in the Oval office. Personally I really like Yang's ideas and I would hope that he ends up with a cabinet appointment to oversee the kinds of fiscal policy changes we really need.

 

Good idea on Yang!. I think if we don't exploit some of this talent in a Democratic administration, we will be fools. Pete really has some brains and polititical skills. Some of them need some seasoning, some breadth of experience, and a little be of political acumen but they are definite assets. I like Warren but she can be a bit abrasive. I have come to the conclusion that sexism is a serious problem in our party, and what we see as bold and uncompromising truth-telling in a man on the campaign trail , is taken differently when a woman is saying the same thing.

 

If there was a Warren administration I would be happy to have Harris as AG, Booker/Castro as SoS and Yang in Treasury.

If it is someone else then Warren needs to be Senate Leader working with Yang in Treasury. Those two both have the best economic ideas IMO.

Harris would be an excellent AG IMO because she doesn't take any crap and she would shut down the legal crap happening on the border right now.

Whomever ends up as SoD is going to have to be willing to reshape our military into a leaner format with lower overheads for the sake of the nation and if that means hurting defense contractors then SOBEIT. They are not ENTITLED to PROFITS at taxpayer expense.

 

With Harris at AG, there will be a new focus on white collar crime, pursuing anti-monopolistic mergers, and putting some real teeth back into banking and investment reform. Warren would be great crafting a tax overhaul bill.

 

Of course. But my point is that this progressive dem was winning election after election in a conservative state that went republican, against far better known, better funded and better organized republican competition right smack dab in the figurative 'Main street Peoria'. He was a soft spoken war hero in time of war. He seemed like a proven candidate and as good a risk as anyone. But for that final loss, his reputation as a progressive winner against conventional odds would have been very very different.

 

You seem to be under the impression that every Democrat elected to office is a progressive, when they are not.

 

But You can be pretty sure that in each of these races, the Dem had a more progressive message and platform than the GOP candidate they beat.

 

"Aside from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

 

You make that exception out to be a big deal. It was only once.

 

I lived through it. It nearly destroyed the Democratic Party. Had it not been for Nixon's resignation less than 2 years later it might very well have done just that..

People wonder how the Republicans survive when they're basically and pretty clearly out to benefit one narrow group at everyone else's expense. One reason is they don't try to push really big time losing propositions, like running radicals for President, twice

 

Was the other 'radical' Walter Mondale?

 

They are not the Presidency. Radicals in State Seats, Congress and Governorships are possible. Not in the Presidency.

We HAVE to beat Trump, If we don't it's quite possible this will be the last honest election we see. We cannot afford to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

 

I bet he drops out in the next month.

 

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you read things that were never posted.

The establishment Dems have been on a long losing streak since 2010. The progressives turned that around with their messaging and gotv efforts. About half the seats that the Dems won to take back the house were progressives.

 

You hope.

 

Bet. bet or just an expression.
Message / Conversation interests in bet. wager.

 

Hell no! That senile moron is still the sanist of the bunch (well, Gabbard, but the prog extremists will never go for her either). I hope hes the nom.

I just dont see him sticking it out.

And its too bad- Biden v Trump debates would be epic comedy.