2016 elections - because it's never too early

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.)

[OttoVonBismarck]

And to be honest, Bernie is honest for the majority of what he talks about a revolution is necessary--a revolution that would involve actually rewriting the United States Constitution, possibly by force since it would involve doing so over the objection of the House of Representatives and probably at least 20-25+ of the States. That's why I view his candidacy with skepticism.

Do I literally think Bernie would just sit in the office paralyzed with inaction when nothing he promised ends up being possible? No. He'll do something. But what, I don't know, because he hasn't told me. Probably because any answer--the only real possible answers, will involve politicking and working with the Republicans in Congress. Once he does that, he's the "evil establishment" just like Hillary, right? So at that point why not vote for Hillary.

[Admiral Yi]

And to be honest, Bernie is honest for the majority of what he talks about a revolution is necessary--a revolution that would involve actually rewriting the United States Constitution, possibly by force since it would involve doing so over the objection of the House of Representatives and probably at least 20-25+ of the States. That's why I view his candidacy with skepticism.

What kinds of rewrites are you talking about?  I haven't seen anything on his web site that would require amending the Constitution.

[Berkut]

And to be honest, Bernie is honest for the majority of what he talks about a revolution is necessary--a revolution that would involve actually rewriting the United States Constitution, possibly by force since it would involve doing so over the objection of the House of Representatives and probably at least 20-25+ of the States. That's why I view his candidacy with skepticism.

Do I literally think Bernie would just sit in the office paralyzed with inaction when nothing he promised ends up being possible? No. He'll do something. But what, I don't know, because he hasn't told me. Probably because any answer--the only real possible answers, will involve politicking and working with the Republicans in Congress. Once he does that, he's the "evil establishment" just like Hillary, right? So at that point why not vote for Hillary.

"Establishment" does not mean what you think it means.

It is kind of funny that you equate working with other parties as "establishment". Kind of telling, really.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

100% of his economic agenda cannot be passed by a Congress with single member districts when the country has a lot of spread-out conservative voters and hyper concentrated in cities liberal voters. The only way around that would be a proportional form of representation that would insure with the election of a liberal firebrand like Bernie, so too comes in a liberal firebrand Congress.

Sweeping changes are constitutional possible in theory in our system, but are impossible in practice--the constitution was designed and thus operates an incrementalist form of government. Only a few counter-examples exist from our history and they tend to occur during times of extreme national crisis, where one President is given carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he wants by Congress. FDR and Lincoln are two examples (Lincoln sometimes even just ignored Congress when they disagreed with him, the Supreme Court too) and arguably Andrew Jackson with his assault on the traditional political establishment lead by the first wave of populism in American history. Bernie isn't going to take office during the Great Depression or the Civil War, and he's not going to have a rubber stamp legislature--no President is unless we have crises of similar scale. So the only realistic way to make sweeping structural changes would be a totally different form of government, even a Westminster style system would work since the PM's inherent legislative majority gives him greater legislative action.

The other way to make changes is incrementally--but Bernie and Bernie fans mock the Democrats who work within the incrementalist framework.

[Berkut]

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.

[OttoVonBismarck]

And to be honest, Bernie is honest for the majority of what he talks about a revolution is necessary--a revolution that would involve actually rewriting the United States Constitution, possibly by force since it would involve doing so over the objection of the House of Representatives and probably at least 20-25+ of the States. That's why I view his candidacy with skepticism.

Do I literally think Bernie would just sit in the office paralyzed with inaction when nothing he promised ends up being possible? No. He'll do something. But what, I don't know, because he hasn't told me. Probably because any answer--the only real possible answers, will involve politicking and working with the Republicans in Congress. Once he does that, he's the "evil establishment" just like Hillary, right? So at that point why not vote for Hillary.

"Establishment" does not mean what you think it means.

It is kind of funny that you equate working with other parties as "establishment". Kind of telling, really.

Huh, I don't think it means that--I think establishment is used by Bernie supporters to mean "anyone not-Bernie" and I think working with a framework of realism (that involves things like PACs and taking big donations--things Obama did to beat Romney in 2012) and compromise is part of that. Has Bernie even once said he'd be interested in working with the Republicans? No. He's said that his supporters would be "so loud at Mitch McConnell's doors that he'd have to capitulate." But that isn't reality--Mitch McConnell (who probably won't be Senate Majority leader after 2016 anyway) or more importantly Paul Ryan represent leadership of legislators who represent deep red safe constituencies, and they aren't going to care if a bunch of screaming liberals have a love-in on the Mall, Congressmen from West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas don't get elected by people like that, and they don't lose elections to people like that either.

[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?

[alfred russel]

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?

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

I can see the Berniemania has made you incapable of reasonable discussion--that's a common affliction.

I'm talking about "what would be necessary" for Bernie to get his agenda through, I'm not talking about what I think Bernie is considering or will do. So to make it clear for you, I don't believe Bernie is contemplating or will contemplate overthrowing our government by force. But I'm saying that to  implement radical sweeping changes over the objections of the legislature, of the kind Bernie is suggesting--would require such a revolution, a physical revolution. But I do not believe Bernie is even thinking of such a thing, I'm just saying there is no mechanism in the "real world" for Bernie to shove ultra liberal legislation through Congress.

Fuck--there's no mechanism to get moderate compromise legislation through Congress when it comes to healthcare, taxes, big banks etc--until the Republicans no longer have majorities in the Senate and House. Bernie's promises ignore the elephant in the room, you can shout at, bitch at, moan at, ignore, cajole, plead with and lambaste the Republican House of Representatives--but you will not move it, and it is not going anywhere. Do you agree with that? Do you agree there is no constitutional mechanism to implement his policies without the congress passing legislation? If so--you see my point--Bernie's policies have no real possibility of being passed, not even compromise versions.

He's made two answers to this conundrum--one he's threatened that people will yell at Congress so loud they'll have to listen (they won't) and two he has said "people have to get out and vote" not just for him but for other Democrats, he concedes he cannot do it alone. But that doesn't matter, the structure of the districts means there is no way to win a Democratic majority in the House in 2016, it is functionally not possible.

[Berkut]

And to be honest, Bernie is honest for the majority of what he talks about a revolution is necessary--a revolution that would involve actually rewriting the United States Constitution, possibly by force since it would involve doing so over the objection of the House of Representatives and probably at least 20-25+ of the States. That's why I view his candidacy with skepticism.

Do I literally think Bernie would just sit in the office paralyzed with inaction when nothing he promised ends up being possible? No. He'll do something. But what, I don't know, because he hasn't told me. Probably because any answer--the only real possible answers, will involve politicking and working with the Republicans in Congress. Once he does that, he's the "evil establishment" just like Hillary, right? So at that point why not vote for Hillary.

"Establishment" does not mean what you think it means.

It is kind of funny that you equate working with other parties as "establishment". Kind of telling, really.

Huh, I don't think it means that--I think establishment is used by Bernie supporters to mean "anyone not-Bernie" and I think working with a framework of realism (that involves things like PACs and taking big donations--things Obama did to beat Romney in 2012) and compromise is part of that. Has Bernie even once said he'd be interested in working with the Republicans? No. He's said that his supporters would be "so loud at Mitch McConnell's doors that he'd have to capitulate." But that isn't reality--Mitch McConnell (who probably won't be Senate Majority leader after 2016 anyway) or more importantly Paul Ryan represent leadership of legislators who represent deep red safe constituencies, and they aren't going to care if a bunch of screaming liberals have a love-in on the Mall, Congressmen from West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas don't get elected by people like that, and they don't lose elections to people like that either.

None of that has anything to do with what people like Sanders, and people who like Sanders, mean by "anti-establishment".

Being part of the establishment does not mean you are willing to work across the aisle, and not being part doesn't mean you are not. They have nothing to do with one another.

[Berkut]

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.

I can see the Berniemania has made you incapable of reasonable discussion--that's a common affliction.

I don't support Sanders. Try again.

[Berkut]

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.

I can see the Berniemania has made you incapable of reasonable discussion--that's a common affliction.

I'm talking about "what would be necessary" for Bernie to get his agenda through, I'm not talking about what I think Bernie is considering or will do. So to make it clear for you, I don't believe Bernie is contemplating or will contemplate overthrowing our government by force. But I'm saying that to  implement radical sweeping changes over the objections of the legislature, of the kind Bernie is suggesting--would require such a revolution, a physical revolution. But I do not believe Bernie is even thinking of such a thing, I'm just saying there is no mechanism in the "real world" for Bernie to shove ultra liberal legislation through Congress.

So?

So what do you contemplate him doing INSTEAD then?

I can answer that - the same things he did in Burlington, where he was not able to Stalinize it either. He ran the city under the principles and ideology he believed in, which means that when it came time to do stuff like zone waterfront, he pushed for it to be zoned for public use. He pushed for low cost housing as being a necessary component of high priced housing development proposals.

This is pretty simply to understand. He cannot institute single payer health care, but he can guide what is possible towards more inclusive, more centralized health care. He isn't forced to do nothing if he cannot socialize the state in the manner you imagine he wants to.

Just like Trump isn't really going to build a giant wall funded by the Mexicans. That doesn't mean we should assume he will do nothing about immigration though - it just means that his ideals will shape what he CAN do, and we should be aware of that.

I am not much of a socialist, so I am not all that keen on Sanders because I don't really want someone who thinks the Socialism is awesome to make decisions that move us in that direction, in most cases.

[/quote]
Fuck--there's no mechanism to get moderate compromise legislation through Congress when it comes to healthcare, taxes, big banks etc--until the Republicans no longer have majorities in the Senate and House.
[/quote]

That problem is not unique to Sanders, and Clinton will have the exact same issue.

Bernie's promises ignore the elephant in the room, you can shout at, bitch at, moan at, ignore, cajole, plead with and lambaste the Republican House of Representatives--but you will not move it, and it is not going anywhere. Do you agree with that? Do you agree there is no constitutional mechanism to implement his policies without the congress passing legislation? If so--you see my point--Bernie's policies have no real possibility of being passed, not even compromise versions.

You can put "clinton" everywhere you just put "Bernie" it is exactly as true.

Yes, it is the case that if the Republicans continue to refuse to govern as long as there is a non-Republican President, the President will have trouble getting much done.

He's made two answers to this conundrum--one he's threatened that people will yell at Congress so loud they'll have to listen (they won't) and two he has said "people have to get out and vote" not just for him but for other Democrats, he concedes he cannot do it alone. But that doesn't matter, the structure of the districts means there is no way to win a Democratic majority in the House in 2016, it is functionally not possible.

Again, none of this has anything to do with Sanders.

[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.

What is it exactly You think the word "establishment", means?

[Eddie Teach]

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.