2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

McCain and Palin spent the 2008 campaign attacking Obama's "socialism". The voters didn't care. It's not the toxic word it once was.

But in 2008 McCain and Palin were ridiculed for not knowing the meaning of the word socialist as Obama was not a socialist. Sanders has embraced the term socialist, and it won't be hard to associate him with some of the really unfortunate cold war era left wing movements (see the Sandinistas).

They can't have been ridiculed too widely, as it was a constant theme.

Palin speaking was a constant too.

[Admiral Yi]

I remember the "McCain doesn't understand socialism" discussion very vividly from here, but not so much from the media.

[Razgovory]

What is really funny is to see the establishment Dems *agreeing* with someone like OvB that Sanders is so crazy radical that he must be contemplating using force to overthrow the Constitution.

The power of tribal loyalty is really quite impressive.

Who has said that?

I have no idea.  Otto is saying that Sanders is essentially a single issue candidate, and when he fails there he's got nothing else up his sleeve.  I think that's fairly accurate.  Laws can be passed to regulate Wall Street and taxes can be raised (It would be difficult but possible).  There is no law barring a constitutional amendment that can overturn Citizens United.  His talk about money and lobbyists likewise runs into constitutional problems.  On foreign policy, it can be summed up as anti-war and protectionist.

Sanders is a lot like Ron Paul (though with wider appeal).  He's a political gadfly that due to the small area he represents is continually elected.  He's a political loner who doesn't really seem to play ball with his colleagues.  His politics are unorthodox and he's a bit of crank (though not nearly as much as Ron Paul), and he keeps harping on about his pet issues were there is no realistic (and in some cases legal) way to really resolve.  He doesn't offer much in the way of solutions to the problems he points out beyond cries of revolution.

[LaCroix]

big difference between a political opponent saying something vs. the guy himself acknowledging it

[Razgovory]

McCain and Palin spent the 2008 campaign attacking Obama's "socialism". The voters didn't care. It's not the toxic word it once was.

But in 2008 McCain and Palin were ridiculed for not knowing the meaning of the word socialist as Obama was not a socialist. Sanders has embraced the term socialist, and it won't be hard to associate him with some of the really unfortunate cold war era left wing movements (see the Sandinistas).

They can't have been ridiculed too widely, as it was a constant theme.

So is Creationism, but that's a regular theme in Republican politics.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, Raz is doing a good job here expressing my point. You can't just replace "Bernie" with "Clinton" in everything, because I think Hillary fundamentally understands what the Presidency is and isn't. The Presidency isn't a legislative job, a President's legislative agenda and goals are very important, but Presidents do a lot other than just try to lean on Congress to pass legislation. I think Hillary is "all in" on all of that, and I feel she has fleshed out, to a much greater degree, what she would do with the rest of the Presidency. The "rest of the Presidency" is actually the entirety of the constitutional bailiwick of the office, since the constitution gives the President no real formal role in legislation other than vetoing it and calling special congressional sessions. Hillary won't be any better able to get liberal legislation through Congress, but I know what she plans to do with the rest of the job of the President, and  I approve of it more or less.

I don't know what Sanders would do because he hasn't told me. That's on him, not on me.

Also on legislation, the House isn't likely to approve any changes to Obamacare (that aren't dismantling it), but even Obama himself has gotten some bills through in conjunction with Ryan's House in the past few months. I think on some of those bills where movement is possible (and there are some), Clinton will do a better job at managing that process than Bernie. Bernie's job as angry provocateur since 1990 or so hasn't prepared him to do things like that.

[jimmy olsen]

What are your thoughts on when Sanders was Mayor of Burlington, Vt.

Also a response to berkut, to be honest I've given it no attention or regard at all, and don't know much about it. Other than that he got more national exposure than a small town mayor normally would because he did some big stunts as a zany lefty. The reason for this is that at least every smaller town I've lived in, the mayor doesn't do much and doesn't have a lot of power. The mayor is one member of city council, sometimes he doesn't even have a vote in council unless there's a tie, and a professional city manager who isn't a politician is hired by city council and runs the city day to day. The mayor is more of a good will ambassador. I don't know if Burlington uses that model, but a lot more small towns actually use that model versus the "big city" model that cities like Chicago/New York City etc use (in those systems the mayor is more like a full fledged executive akin to a governor/president, but of a smaller geographic area.)

I posted a rather in depth article on his time as mayor a few pages back. Seemed like he had a decent amount of power and managed to accomplish things in the face of opposition.

[jimmy olsen]

What is really funny is to see the establishment Dems *agreeing* with someone like OvB that Sanders is so crazy radical that he must be contemplating using force to overthrow the Constitution.

The power of tribal loyalty is really quite impressive.

Who has said that?

I have no idea.  Otto is saying that Sanders is essentially a single issue candidate, and when he fails there he's got nothing else up his sleeve.  I think that's fairly accurate.  Laws can be passed to regulate Wall Street and taxes can be raised (It would be difficult but possible).  There is no law barring a constitutional amendment that can overturn Citizens United.  His talk about money and lobbyists likewise runs into constitutional problems.  On foreign policy, it can be summed up as anti-war and protectionist.

Sanders is a lot like Ron Paul (though with wider appeal).  He's a political gadfly that due to the small area he represents is continually elected.  He's a political loner who doesn't really seem to play ball with his colleagues.  His politics are unorthodox and he's a bit of crank (though not nearly as much as Ron Paul), and he keeps harping on about his pet issues were there is no realistic (and in some cases legal) way to really resolve.  He doesn't offer much in the way of solutions to the problems he points out beyond cries of revolution.

He's literally known as the "amendment king", so that's not true. He's had a surprising impact on legislation.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

[garbon]

What is really funny is to see the establishment Dems *agreeing* with someone like OvB that Sanders is so crazy radical that he must be contemplating using force to overthrow the Constitution.

The power of tribal loyalty is really quite impressive.

Who has said that?

I have no idea.  Otto is saying that Sanders is essentially a single issue candidate, and when he fails there he's got nothing else up his sleeve.  I think that's fairly accurate.  Laws can be passed to regulate Wall Street and taxes can be raised (It would be difficult but possible).  There is no law barring a constitutional amendment that can overturn Citizens United.  His talk about money and lobbyists likewise runs into constitutional problems.  On foreign policy, it can be summed up as anti-war and protectionist.

Sanders is a lot like Ron Paul (though with wider appeal).  He's a political gadfly that due to the small area he represents is continually elected.  He's a political loner who doesn't really seem to play ball with his colleagues.  His politics are unorthodox and he's a bit of crank (though not nearly as much as Ron Paul), and he keeps harping on about his pet issues were there is no realistic (and in some cases legal) way to really resolve.  He doesn't offer much in the way of solutions to the problems he points out beyond cries of revolution.

He's literally known as the "amendment king", so that's not true. He's had a surprising impact on legislation.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

I googled that and apparently a journalist with Rolling Stone gave him that name and his campaign put it on their website.

[grumbler]

As grumbler said Jim Gilmore wasn't much of a Governor. In general Virginia doesn't produce many good governors, I have always theorized the single 4 year term limit (you can run again, but have to sit out 4 years, and only 2 people since 1830 have done this) makes it a much less attractive office so you don't get the quality national political aspirants other similarly sized states get.

I think that that is right.  The governorship seems more like a ticket to get punched on the way to the Senate than an office to be sought in its own right.  having said that, I thought both kaine and McDonnell did excellent jobs managing the state's budget during the recession.  Other than being a crook, in fact, I thought McDonnell was an excellent governor and I was disappointed to find out he let himself get caught up in that tawdry corruption.  I had even forgiven him for being a Domer.

[Neil]

Two fold--I think his ideas on lobbyists and campaign contributions will require a rewrite of the constitution, at least in our current situation. Yeah, if Bernie was FDR and had both houses of congress and the SCOTUS on his side he could do whatever he wanted there.

Well, with Scalia's death, the conservative movement is going to have a difficult time of it for the next little while.

[DGuller]

What is really funny is to see the establishment Dems *agreeing* with someone like OvB that Sanders is so crazy radical that he must be contemplating using force to overthrow the Constitution.

The power of tribal loyalty is really quite impressive.

Who said that?

[Razgovory]

Nobody.  Berkut is practicing being part of both sides of an argument.

[DGuller]

Let's give Berkut some time to Google up one Democrat who said such a thing, so that it doesn't look like he just made shit up.

[Berkut]

OvB said that Sanders "honestly" wants to effect change that would require the forceful overthrow of the US Constitution.

He then said that he doesn't think Sanders wants to forcefully overthrow the Constitution, but that what he wants would require that - so cool, he walked that back.

But the point is that all the Hillary supporters are all agreeing with OvB in his "story" that Sanders is so crazy radical that he either could never get anything done because what he wants to do requires violence, or that if he did compromise, then he is just like Hillary anyway. Neither of which is remotely true. There are good reasons to choose Clinton over Sanders, policy reasons, but THESE reasons come down to "He isn't really a democrat!" - not policy.

He is not like Hillary - he (like Trump) is an anti-establishment rebel. He refuses (at least his story is such) to be bought out by corporate America, and become their pawn. That has nothing to do with whether or not he would or would not be willing to compromise to get things done, and everything to do with rejecting the same old same old partisan bullshit that our resident Dems are rushing to defend.

This fictitious narrative of Sanders being some crazy nutjob is backed up by the tribal Dems because they would rather climb into bed with OvB than see a lefty who is not really one of their tribe knock off their bona-fide tribe leader Hillary.

I will vote for Hillary over Sanders, because I agree with her policy positions more, and I think socialism is a pretty terrible thing. But I can certainly understand the appeal of Sanders, and why he terrifies the establishment sheep enough to get them to make common cause with someone as right wing as OvB.