So, to summarize your position, you want Obama to get elected so America can have "historic" proof a Black president can get elected, despite knowing none of his policies will be implemented, and despite most evidence suggesting he is far less electable in the general than Hillary.
To put this another way, you're willing to give up Supreme Court nominations and the court being ruined for generations for ideology and having a "conversation" about a Black president being elected. Because statistically, Obama's odds are far less than Hillary's. Most odd makers will tell you that. He could beat the odds and win, but I'm not willing to take that risk. I don't want to apologize to the minorities and women who need abortions who will be disenfranchised because I wanted to have a "conversation" over a candidate that had little chance of winning in the first place.
Anyway let's agree to disagree because it seems a difference in fundamental beliefs and/or personality to me.
You can't actually try to turn my words against me here, since my whole point was that Obama couldn't get his moderate policies past the point, and so Bernie has zero chance - statistically, it would be as close to 0% as possible - of passing even more progressive legislation. So a Bernie Sanders presidency would be one where all his policies would be neutered into moderate proposals before it passed in the House/Senate anyway. In other words, the whole point behind getting a Sanders elected - truly socialist/progressive ideals in a President - would be effectively a non-starter. Not a single socialist/progressive piece of legislation is getting passed under a Sanders OR a Hillary presidency.
So you're voting for Supreme Court Justices primarily. And since Bernie has a far smaller chance of getting elected, objectively (odds makers, polls, statistics plus America's historic disdain of socialism, which is inarguable - all in Hillary's favor), I choose to play the odds. That's what a pragmatic vote looks like. I prefer Bernie's policies, but won't waste a vote for ideology when I know he's not getting progressive legislation passed.
American history is one of opportunism. You have to choose the right time to make these changes. Right now is simply not the right time, due to Republican obstructionism. What Bernie supporters should do is vote who they feel, they switch to the inevitable Hillary candidacy, and then push for their candidates to encourage their constituents to actually participate in the US Census and gerrymander the fuck out of the districts in revenge for Republican gerrymandering. THEN once that's fixed, we can get a Democratic Socialist candidate who actually has a shot at passing legislation.
Until that point, it's simply symbolic - and a symbol is not worth shit when you're having to tell women they can no longer get an abortion because they lost that right due to the Republican president nominating conservative justices and destroying the balance of the court for generations. You guys are willing to take that risk - as someone who prefers Bernie's policies but actually understands how our system works, I am not. Because real lives are on the line. And Bernie's progressive policies ain't getting passed, so he's not going to be changing lives with progressive legislation. He's going to do it with Supreme Court Justices.
So since it comes down to that, I'm picking the candidate with the indisputable best odds to win. Because in the end, due to Congress, both Hillary and Bernie will only be able to pass the most moderate of proposals. In other words, there is no chance the country is getting more progressive with a Bernie proposal. No legislation is getting written into law which will push us closer to Democratic Socialism.
It is not time. Because I understand how American politics actually works, I will bide my time and vote for such a candidate when they have a shot at actually affecting that change. Bernie has a zero percent chance of affecting that change, and Hillary has a better shot at winning. And that is how a person, in a completely sensible and pragmatic fashion, chooses Hillary over Bernie while still preferring Bernie's policies.
Not really. The person you quoted seems to be unaware that Clinton and Sanders proposals are enough similar to present the same obstructionism from Republicans. Also, people dont care about democratic socialism. That gallup poll means nothing when socialism = the face of the Democratic Party. Isnt Obama a muslim socialist to the right, anyway? And yet here we are.
Read my posts in full before you cast nonsense accusations about my beliefs. I clearly state multiple times that neither Hillary or Bernie are going to be able to pass legislation that is particularly progressive. In effect, then, we're voting for Supreme Court Justices and who has a better shot at winning and nominating those justices.
If we want real progressive change, we need to fix the gerrymandering system which a president has no power over. We need to participate in the census, get Democrats to redistrict after 2020 census, and then get Democrats to actually participate in the mid-terms to get progressive leadership in the House and Senate (and a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate if possible sans Blue Dogs Democrats fucking things up, which makes this even a taller order).
You guys seem to get very annoyed when people relate the cold hard facts regarding how our political system works. Yes, it's frustrating. The only way to fix it is to actually go to the source of the issue, not risk losing a major election to make a point that won't even actually be able to do
shit progressive-wise as President.
Bernie cannot fix it, and taking a bigger risk on a Democrat becoming president is not, in the view of many Hillary supporters, worth it. It's not worth it to me, and I wildly prefer Bernie's policies by leaps and bounds. If you can't win me, you ain't winning shit.
And if you can't get a Democratic House and Senate by the time Bernie is elected (or at least 2 years into his term during the mid-terms), you ain't doing it. You ain't getting shit for progressive legislation passed, and neither is Hillary. And the only way to do that before 2020 is to win 56% of the vote. During a mid-terms. As a Democrat. This is not going to happen sans Merlin literally coming into reality and casting a magical spell to do it.
That's pragmatism in action. It's annoying, but it's better than living in a fairy tale world.
Once again, no Bernie supporter has yet to state even a single path to getting their legislation passed. I keep mentioning this because that is the important part. You guys must present a case that there is a meaningful path to doing that before 2020. Not a single Bernie supporter has, ever. That means something. Because ideology without a plan to enact said ideology is about as valuable as dog shit.
It's convenient that the hurdle's height is in no small part due to those likely to vote Democratic who are playing to a self-fulfilling prophecy that Bernie is unelectable. So I'd probably start there. I keep seeing Hillary supporters like yourself say, "Oh, I like Bernie's ideals and I don't think Hillary would fare any better on getting progressive liberal policies passed, but he's just not electable and she is." Okay, but let's be honest here: if we took all the people who are probably voting for Hillary just because they think she's the only electable one, that would go some ways towards clearing the hurdle (which is not to suggest that anyone who legitimately prefers Hillary as a candidate should change their vote, to be clear).
None of Bernie's ideas are getting into action if he were to get elected. That's a fact, not a guess. There is no actual way to get around the Republican majority in the House or the problems with the Senate fillibuster with the current climate. It would require a catastrophic meltdown of the Republicans probably related to such fuck up of monumental order to get 56% or more of the vote necessary to even get a simple majority. And they still wouldn't have a Super-majority to get passed the filibuster in the house. So we need to fix the gerrymandering, and to do that we need to make out well during the 2020 census. That's how we do it. It's the cold hard facts.
Risking a much less likely to be elected Bernie simply to make a point when none of his progressive ideas are ever going to be enacted is simply foolhardy, and there is simply no way I'm risking it when Supreme Court Justices are on the line. They are getting set for example to eliminate Affirmative Action. This wouldn't happen if the court wasn't split the way it was. Now imagine a Republican gets elected because we have people who wanted to be slick and have a "conversation" with the country about a Democratic Socialist which the country wants nothing to do with? You can keep making arguments they don't, but that's why the "socialist" attack was so successful on Obama. It's not going to be better for someone who fully admits they are. It's a fact America (read: a good solid majority) hates socialists. And Bernie has neither the charisma nor discipline in his campaign to actually be the one to make that change happen by sheer force of will. So It's not fair, but that's what it is.
Explain how we fix that to make Bernie's odds better, then explain how we get his legislation passed.
I am choosing the path most likely to get a Democrat into office so we can nominate liberal justices. It's as simple as that. Because I know as someone who understands how our political works that this is the best I can reasonably hope for. Bernie or Hillary are both going to have to settle for legislation far more moderate than I would ever endorse. There's no way around it til we fix the Republican gerrymandering.
One of the biggest reason given for why he's unelectable is because he's a Democratic Socialist and Republicans will slaughter him with that. People like yourself keep admonishing others about the power of Republican fearmongering, but the irony is you're the primary victim of it right now, because you already buy into it before it's happened. Frankly, I'm not convinced. This country has already had a socialist president for the last 8 yrs, and a black Muslim one from Kenya, no less. So I can't see the country having too hard a time with an old white one from Vermont. The thing about fearmongering is that you become numb to certain level of it over time and the only way to keep instilling more fear is to keep increasing the threat. But Sanders is hardly a bigger bogeyman than Obama.
The socialist attacks were incredibly successful against Obama. They participated in killing many of his key legislative initiatives. The difference is Obama never said he was a socialist on record, and his policies were super moderate so the evidence never supported it. Bernie admits it on video, admits it over and over, doesn't shy away from it and his policies are actually super progressive at times.
So, yes, we have evidence the attacks are effective. And we have polls that show it matters. And we have most odds makers and polls that say Hillary has a much better chance at being elected.
So what are you saying? Hillary will be more effective? I really don't get how any of your points don't apply to any Democratic candidate. Republicans will attack any, and I think they hate the idea of Clinton then any other candidate.
Of course. As I said multiple times, Hillary and Bernie both have a shit chance at passing any progressive legislation. They'll both settle for moderate policies they can get through the House, and they will both settle for Supreme Court nominations being one of their key legacies (without knowing what type of foreign policy shit is going to occur the next 4 years).
So again I'm simply choosing pragmatism. I know the evidence supports Hillary having a much better shot, I know she has the entire Democratic establishment behind her and thus the money and I know neither are getting progressive legislation passed. So I choose the one most likely to be elected.
This isn't fear, it's a simple understanding of our system. There's nothing malicious about it, since I like Bernie more than Hillary. A
lot more.
