About the only hope of that happening I fear is if Sanders runs third party in which case Democrats will really be screwed.
The Democratic party and the MSM weren't for gay marriage when Obama ran. They changed because the voters and viewers changed. You are the ultimate believer in identity politics because you don't see politicians as humans who can be swayed by the situation around them. If you want universal health care, then you vote in Hillary and a Democratic congress and work on them. Every congressional campaign backed by Sanders lost. Sanders lost. If the votes were actually there, that wouldn't have happened. Your thinking doesn't match reality, so you have to invent conspiracies to explain it.
We're supposed to STFU and vote for whoever they anoint. No ifs and or buts. What's the matter with you @totti fan!? /s
And here's the thing about that: At the end of those eight years, my fellow progressives having been reminded for eight years that no, the two parties are in fact not the same, will line up to vote for a centrist with smiles on their faces. ...just like they did in 2008. I mean, you can laugh, but if we're sitting here in 2023 or 2024 and Trump is still president and Republicans are still on that same bullshit that they've been on for 40 years, even Cory Booker will look real ********ing appealing, just to stop the bleeding. @totti fan, because he's a booger-eating moron who doesn't give two shits about policy (If you don't believe me, just look as his posting history) and only focuses on personality, will look at Hillary Clinton's defeat as a noble cause in and of itself. Personally, I would've rather spent four years trying to push Hillary Clinton -- for all of her myriad and sundry faults -- to the left from where Barack Obama left things, than what we're doing now, which is spending the next four years fighting like hell to not give up all the gains on healthcare, environment protection, civil rights, voting rights, and police accountability. Don't take this as a full-throated endorsement of Hillary Clinton, because it ain't. I caucused for Bernie Sanders in Colorado because I favor the policies that he advocated, most of which made it into the mother********ing platform at the mother********ing convention. But I know how the system works, and I ain't gonna make "perfect" the enemy of "good." And I'm about 100.0000000% sure that things, although nowhere near perfect, would've been better with Hillary Clinton in the White House than with Donald Trump.
Well it looks like Kamala may be the next shining star. Interesting article.... https://eclaireapense.wordpress.com/2017/07/23/get-ready-for-the-gaslighting-to-commence/
Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that there was not a single damn policy reason listed in that piece to not support Kamala Harris?
lol you're going to push Hillary Clinton to the left of Barack Obama. Clinton already starts off in a position to the right of Obama, once you've voted for her you've ceded power and you've more or less lost the battle. Two areas where Clinton was worse than Trump: Obama was continuing to push the TPP up til the end of the GE campaign proof enough for me that after a few tweaks Clinton would have passed the treaty that Trump opposed. Clinton wanted to set up a no-fly zone in northern Syria which would have put us precariously close to a hot war with "our" biggest nuclear powered "enemy". Also I'm pretty sure "we" would have launched a full scale military invasion of Syria by now. Trump's bombing of Syria was mostly symbolic and he recently withdrew Obama's funding of terrorist cells in the region. You are a useful idiot to the Democrats. Yes you voted for the more progressive candidate in Sanders in the primary but ultimately you will likely endorse anyone they put up because um well "yay Team Blue". Prove me wrong. If Sanders had run in 2016 as a third party candidate in the GE would you have voted for him?
Here's a slightly more colourful take on the same subject. It includes a discussion of foreign policy: WE. DON’T. HAVE. TIME. FOR. THIS. SHIT.
You need to reframe your thinking within the context of money in politics. Corporate donors ultimately don't care about issues likes women's rights, gay marriage. Its reforms to guarantee universal health care, a decent minimum wage and basic workers rights for instance that directly impact big business bottom line that concern them and so are not supported by the party duopoly. Sanders only loses because he has to fight against his own party.
That's contrary to almost the entirety of human history, where politicians who get elected take care of the people who got them elected, but go on. You're gonna have to show your work here, cowboy, because that looks a lot like "I think that her campaign promises were just for funsies, and I don't have any evidence, save for a gut belief that she would favor literally any policy I oppose." /eyebrow cocks at the terminology in bold, when I remember who else is a big fan of that term Team Blue has done a shitload for the poor and middle class in my lifetime than Team Red, and I'm a member of the middle class, so sure, I'll vote for them. Does it increases the chances that someone will get elected who'll roll back the gains that have been made in healthcare, environmental protection, civil rights, voting rights, and police accountability? Yes? Then no. Since I'm a grownup and not a fanboy, I vote for policy.
Chuck Schumer admitted yesterday Clinton didn't run on a policy agenda: “When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself,” Schumer told the Washington Post “So what did we do wrong?” Schumer continued. “People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.” Schumer was responding to a new poll which shows that most Americans believe his party stands for nothing other than opposing the current administration.
It has a discussion of foreign policy as much as the Indiana Jones movies were a critique of the Nazi regime in Germany. Other than that it's a freakout that a first-term Senator from California is getting a lot of love from folks, a freakout that she's hiring some "DC vets," and then a pivot to a freakout about how things could go sideways in Syria, all with none of the following: quotes from Sen. Harris quotes from Sen. Harris' office quotes from Sen. Harris' campaign Well done. But in the future, if you want to admit that I'm right that you're lightweight who's allergic to policy, just write, " @ElJefe , you're right!"
So what you're saying is that you're adopting a Clintonian strategy to oppose Kamala Harris -- freak out about the person and go light on policy? That's a bold strategy, Cotton.
your binary view wrt voting will doom us all. You should really examine the Obama and Clinton record on healthcare, environmental protection, civil rights, voting rights, and police accountability its not particularly good. You are basically admitting that no matter how bad the Democrats get you will still vote for them if they are better than the Repugs, if voting elsewhere means the Repugs might win. Sometimes you have to lose to win (Jeremy Corbyn proved that and so did Sanders). For those of us on the left it is a constant battle to get what we want because the odds are so against us. True change does not come without struggle and sacrifice. i'd have to conclude that you are too comfortable to empathise with the countless numbers suffering in your country. If you don't act soon on our current trajectory you and yours will be joining their ranks.
follow the money. She's being backed by Clinton donors and establishment Dems whose (lack of) policy is clear. And there is this: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05...why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/
You go to the polls with the voting system that you have, not the voting system you wish you had. OK, you're gonna have to show your work here. Call it "Stuff I learned the hard way between 2001 and 2009." This is where I point out that neither of those guys have actually won anything larger than the State of Vermont. "Your country"? Aw shit. You mean I've been wasting my time with someone who not only doesn't have a clue, but doesn't have any skin in the game?
I'll get to my "work" re Obama and Clinton at some point if I can be bothered. But I find your propensity to dismiss hard truths and tough questions with glib comments particularly pathetic. I can tolerate free-market right-wingers because they at least have a coherent belief system that is somewhat analagous to business donor interests. But liberals, ugh, you promote marginal issues ignoring broader class concerns whilst pretending you're helping the working class. You can't believe you're for working people and simultaneously be in the same corner as Goldman Sachs, Big Pharma and Big Oil. Right wingers who don't understand economics yes, but liberals should be smarter than that. Oh but hang on i forgot we have a two-party system. You're an idiot.