Its time to throw the baby out with the bath water, Dump Hillary for Bernie and call it a day.

[jbrown329]

We already have the strongest military on the planet.

And hopefully the Iran treaty will be ratified before Trump ever gets to Washington.

The alternative is a woman dedicated to making the citizenry of this country so weak and dependent that when the religious right comes out in the open as the fascists they are the police state will already have everyone cowed. Give me an old-time Democrat who understands that the JPFO is right about the Second Amendment, and who can convince the left that being armed and dangerous should not be left to the plutocrats and theocrats.

If the military is so damn strong, then why are service members having to do multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan?

And I don't support taking anyone's guns away. I support stronger background checks. Had we had enhanced background checks, a nurse here wouldn't be dead. Her ex-husband (convicted for domestic violence) wouldn't have had a gun. He took his gun into a local hospital and shot her dead. Hell, look at the two killed in the last shooting. Both dead. Because the asshole should NOT have been able to buy a gun.

 

[Vitamin]

That the United States, and the Iran military are already cooperating in a common cause against Islamic States indicates that the sanctions regime needed to be lifted....sowing the seeds of more cooperation in a neighbourhood where alliances that can stop the spread of IS will benefit the human race.

The Republicans playing control freak politics with words....is it a treaty, or not needs to be weighed against the possible collapse of the entire neighbourhood with the flood of refugees pouring out of Syria, into Europe one symptom of a region facing an implosion.

In the US there are two types of agreements the President has the authority to negotiate, the first being treaties which are permanment(meaning they last beyond the current administration and presumably forever), and must be ratified by the Senate.

The second, and by far more common type of agreement is called executive, or apparently to use the modern lingo, "non-binding" . These types of agreements are only guaranteed to last as long as the current President remains in office. Once a new administration takes over it is up to the new President whether to enforce the agreement or not.

There is absolutely no difference between the contents of treaties and executive/non-binding agreements. The only thing that separates them is ratification(ie the Senate) or no ratification, and of course time guarantees.

So really the Republicans, instead of demanding that Obama ratitify the agreement which he is under no requirement to do so, should be celebrating that now they can kill the agreement in 2016 when, historically speaking, they should be able to take the White House.

But they're not. They seem to think the only possible way to kill the deal is by a Senate veto. Essentially they're conceding that they have no one that can win the White House in 2016, which means Iran and Europe can sleep easy knowing that there is plenty of life to the deal.

 

[Brian Smith]

I do tend to agree more with Sanders, but the issue is that he is not really capable of getting himself elected, which is worse than nothing. Putting him up to run would be throwing the country directly into the jaws of the GOP. Although some here might be worried about Hillary's ties to the corporates, the GOP still has the market cornered in that department, and the GOP also has a greater likelihood of destroying our chances of advancing our efforts to make peace with Iran. As a matter of fact, someone like Trump would almost certainly get us into a war, and I don't think that Jeb Bush would be any better than his brother, in that regard. For the security of our country, it is presently vitally important to do anything that is necessary to keep the GOP from taking control. They are actually dangerous.

Essentially, Hillary Clinton is merely Machiavellian. The average Republican is a dangerous mixture of narcissistic, Machiavellian, and psychopathic. The choice is not a complex one. "Green block, green hole."

However, I do think that a fair debate, between him and Hillary Clinton, would give both candidates an opportunity to define where they stand, and that would be good for the party overall.

 

[evanrick]

However, I do think that a fair debate, between him and Hillary Clinton, would give both candidates an opportunity to define where they stand, and that would be good for the party overall.

we know Hillary is the establishment candidate, that is her problem and why i will not support her over sanders. Americans must be believe they can have the country they want without the establishment holding us hostage to Iran, TPP, NSA and the debt celing, Obamacare, etc. We cant let the deranged parts of the GOP corporate crime-lord empire control domestic voting and who our candidates should or shot not be or let those preconceived establishment rules always work against the 'unelectability' of someone like Senator Sanders.

 

[mightbe]

As much as I would like to see Sanders be the president, it won't happen. Get any notion otherwise out of your heads now.

The states will simply change the rules about how they pick the delegates. That's how Nixon won the nomination in 1968 (though that's not how he won the presidency, that has more to do with the Southern Strategy than anything else).

Even if Sanders wins primaries, Hillary will get the nomination no matter what (unless she dies or something, of course). Sanders will be maneuvered out of the race by the states. He can't win. The Democrats will not allow it.

I'm sorry.

I have no confidence in Hillary's claims of being a progressive, a reformer, etc. I expect to be proven right.

(I have no confidence in Obama's ability to reform either. He signed Richard Nixon's healthcare plan into law, after all. "Look at this progressive healthcare bill!" As if.)

 

[evanrick]

As much as I would like to see Sanders be the president, it won't happen. Get any notion otherwise out of your heads now.

The states will simply change the rules about how they pick the delegates. That's how Nixon won the nomination in 1968 (though that's not how he won the presidency, that has more to do with the Southern Strategy than anything else).

Even if Sanders wins primaries, Hillary will get the nomination no matter what (unless she dies or something, of course). Sanders will be maneuvered out of the race by the states. He can't win. The Democrats will not allow it.

I'm sorry.

I have no confidence in Hillary's claims of being a progressive, a reformer, etc. I expect to be proven right.

(I have no confidence in Obama's ability to reform either. He signed Richard Nixon's healthcare plan into law, after all. "Look at this progressive healthcare bill!" As if.)

i dont mean to be negative but that is plain and simple cynicism.

 

[mightbe]

I grant you, it'd be pretty cynical if it weren't for the fact that it's already happened and will again if Bernie continues to be successful. Prior to any election where the parties run the risk of "their pick" not winning enough primaries, they start to look at ways to tailor the results. It mostly involves changing how delegates are picked for the national conventions, and in extreme cases legislation can be pushed in state legislatures simultaneously to put extra barriers up for underdog candidates. This can range from changing the rules for being on the ballot to raising the fees to run for office.

But.......that probably won't happen.

Right now, it's pretty obvious that Hillary is the "first choice" by the DNC. She has many of the qualities that help a candidate win the presidency: she has some but not too much governing experience, she is intelligent, she can differentiate herself from her party's previous administration, her track record is safely centrist, and she talks a big game. I say she's a centrist; really it's hard to tell exactly what strain of centrist she is. For her entire political career she has been a "somebody", so it's politically expedient for her to fall roughly in the middle of the discourse, and never reveal too much of her ideological influences.

This is what sets her apart from Sanders. Sanders is (was) the most important nobody in Congress--vocal, fringe-y, consistent, forthright, and direct. His politics are an open book. This gives him enormous mass appeal because this is a very rare quality in a presidential hopeful. Unfortunately, his enthusiasm will sharply divide the Democratic base. There are still a great many Democrats who are quite conservative, and many Republicans who are quite liberal. Usually it's a historical or a family or a geographical thing. Sanders appeals to the Democrats who want fresh blood and a new perspective, but his views will be pretty unpopular among the huge numbers of conservative Democrats.

For a variety of reasons, Democrats and Republicans are pretty homogenized. You won't find huge ideological gaps between their supporters. Any difference between the two is magnified exponentially on the national scene. The fact of the matter is that Sanders almost immediately alienates about half of the Democratic base. Let's say that means in an election among the top 4 candidates from both parties, Sanders might get about 20-25%. Hillary would probably get a plurality, say 35%, and Trump and whoever else each get about 20%. Hillary has more mass appeal than Sanders precisely because she is strongly centrist in her public positions and image.(How much of this is for show I have no idea. I'm sure that she has said and done things she takes issue with just to further her career. That's just what politicians do.)

Sanders is, at present, a major contender. But his electability isn't great, and if he were somehow able to turn the primaries in his favor the (centrist) DNC will do everything it can to shift the election back towards the more centrist candidate, which improves the chances of a Democrat winning the election (and lessens the chances of party-fragmentation, which the Republican Party nearly faced a few years back).

Hillary won't change the world into a more progressive place. That's not her goal and frankly I don't want to see what her version of progressivism looks like. It's probably along the lines of liberal corporatism. She's a centrist. Obama is effectively a centrist. He was, in the late 90s, more liberal. Perhaps he's gotten harder or has self-moderated it so he could be elected. If the latter, then he certainly over-corrected.

 

[CoolBlue71]

… This is what sets her apart from Sanders. Sanders is (was) the most important nobody in Congress--vocal, fringe-y, consistent, forthright, and direct. His politics are an open book. This gives him enormous mass appeal because this is a very rare quality in a presidential hopeful. Unfortunately, his enthusiasm will sharply divide the Democratic base. There are still a great many Democrats who are quite conservative, and many Republicans who are quite liberal. Usually it’s a historical or a family or a geographical thing. Sanders appeals to the Democrats who want fresh blood and a new perspective, but his views will be pretty unpopular among the huge numbers of conservative Democrats.

By conservative, you mean the Democrats from such states as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The problem is that those “conservative Democrats” are the ones who lost out over the last two midterm election cycles of 2010 and 2014.

Take Arkansas as an example. Back in 2008, when the Democratic presidential primaries were still brewing, now-Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe tried to argue on behalf of Hillary Clinton saying, in effect, that she (and not eventual nominee and 44th president Barack Obama) could carry states like those. Arkansas, up till native son and 42nd president Bill Clinton’s re-election in 1996, had carried for every Democratic Party president of the United States. West Virginia had done the same; with exception of the 1916 re-election of 28th president of the United States Woodrow Wilson.

We’re not in that period anymore.

Effective with the 2008 presidential elections, Arkansas had Democrats for governor, both its United States Senate seats, and all four of its U.S. House seats. In just six years, they all flipped Republican. West Virginia, which soundly rejected President Obama (very much so because he’s black), carried in 2012 for Mitt Romney in every single county including the No. 1 most-populous Kanawha County (Charleston). John McCain carried the state, when he lost nationwide by 7.26 percent, with a margin of 13.09 percentage points. Romney lost nationally by 3.86 percent but carried West Virginia by 26.69 percent. In 2008, West Virginia was 20.35 percent more Republican than the nation. In 2012, West Virginia was 25.21 percent more Republican than the nation. Arkansas was even worse. In 2008, John McCain carried it by 19.86 percentage points. (While the 2004-to-2008 popular-vote shift was nearly 10 points, in a Democratic pickup year, a 2004-to-2008 Arkansas went in opposite direction of the country.) In 2012, Mitt Romney carried the state by 23.69 percent. That meant that, over the two elections of 2008 and 2012, in which President Obama never reached 40 percent of the statewide vote as he won nationally with 52.92 and 51.01 percent, Arkansas was 27.12 and 27.55 percentage points more Republican relative the national vote. And in 2014, West Virginia delivered a Republican U.S. Senate pickup that looks to be a harbinger for more GOP pickups in the state’s future—including, for example, the gubernatorial race in 2016.

Kentucky and Tennessee already are firmly with the Republicans. But Arkansas and West Virginia delivered margins, for a 2012 Romney, that had them on the level of Alabama. These are states which routinely backed winning Democrats during the 19th and 20th centuries. But, the map shifted. It not only shifted, it flipped.

The Democrats’ map is where the Republicans used to have theirs. Start with New Hampshire. When it turned out to be the only state George W. Bush failed to hold, from his first election, and with his re-election, he became the first from his party to not carry the Granite State. Between his two elections of 2000 and 2004, Bush also became the first Republican with two terms who never once carried the likes of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin—and, especially noteworthy with Vermont, which carried Republican from the party’s first election of 1856 to 1988 (except denial to Barry Goldwater in 1964). The map’s realignments and counter-realignments are not a surprise. Bill Clinton became the first Democratic president with two terms who never once carried the likes of Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. And Barack Obama became the first two-term Democratic president who never once carried—in addition to Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia—the likes of Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, and Montana.

Having taken a look at the histories of states—meaning, their voting records of backing presidential winners—it’s not the Republicans but the Democrats with the better map. Since the presidential election of 1884, one or both of California and Texas—now the nation’s two most-populous states—have carried in every presidential election. If a Republican wins—Texas definitely carries. If a Democrat wins—California definitely carries. Between California and Texas: the Lone Star State, which first voted in 1848, has voted for presidential winners at about 60 percent; the Golden State, which first voted in 1852, has voted for presidential winners approximately 85 percent.


The map for Democrats winning the presidency—and doing so without 40-state landslides (the trio of two-term presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama averaged 29 states between them)—start with the 242 electoral votes from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Following them are Iowa and New Hampshire, with Democratic tilts, along with bellwethers Nevada and New Mexico—which, as I mentioned before, are trending Democratic. That’s already 263 electoral votes. The four most influential states are, in alphabetical order, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia—and had Mitt Romney unseated Barack Obama, in 2012, he would have flipped them all to win a minimum of 275 electoral votes. Those states are worth 69 electoral votes. And now we have North Carolina trending away from the Republicans—it went from 13 (2000) to 10 (2004) to 7 (2008, Obama’s Democratic pickup of the state) to 6 (2012, Romney’s Republican flip of the sate) percentage points in Republican tilt that will make it the next bellwether state; a significant move that separates it from the combined 11 electoral votes of formerly reliable (when the party wins) states like Arkansas and West Virginia.

The times have changed. So has the map. (And, with a winning Democratic Party, Arizona and Georgia will be next.)


When it comes to general direction for the Democrats, I don’t see any benefit in sucking up to ConservaDems—or trying to run that party breed on the presidential/vice-presidential ticket. A national mood, favoring the Democrats, involves the states I have mentioned. If a grand victory is happening, the ConservaDem states—add Indiana (which flipped for Obama in 2008) and Missouri (ex-bellwether which started trending Republican in 1996) which have boasted similar margins to each other in both 2008 and 2012—are still winnable if that prevailing Democrat ends up with a high single-digit popular-vote margin (as Obama did in 2008).


So, in bringing this to Bernie Sanders, and the discomfort felt by some Democrats: It doesn’t have to do with conservatism within the party ranks. It has to with the comfort and discomfort from the…establishment. The Vermont U.S. senator is definitely not the type of candidate the establishment Democrats want nominated. You used the word homogenized in other parts of your writing. Well, that’s a kind word to describe it. It has to do with in-crowd mentality of a political party. Who exerts more power within that political party.

 

[opinterph]

The only way Trump will get the strongest army on the planet is to reinstate the draft.

I’m curious to know which country presently has the strongest army on the planet. The US spends a significant portion of its resources on “national defense” – lots more than any other country. Does all that spending make the US military the strongest, or do other factors come into play?

One of the “complaints” of Democratic Socialists within the US (according to my own impromptu research) is that massive military spending by the US could be better diverted to efforts that support the more immediate needs of its own people at home. Is it reasonable to speculate that the US is carrying more than its fair share of the efforts and costs involved in “policing” actions around the world and for US citizens to therefore demand that other countries step up and provide more of their resources to support those efforts?

 

[opinterph]

One of the “complaints” of Democratic Socialists within the US (according to my own impromptu research) is that massive military spending by the US could be better diverted to efforts that support the more immediate needs of its own people at home. Is it reasonable to speculate that the US is carrying more than its fair share of the efforts and costs involved in “policing” actions around the world and for US citizens to therefore demand that other countries step up and provide more of their resources to support those efforts?

One of the complaints of Reagan Conservatives is that by reducing America’s military [STRIKE]spending[/STRIKE] strength and calling upon other nations to provide more military muster to meet the world’s challenges – over time, doing what’s right will be managed more and more by committee. Military actions will be choreographed through the United Nations and the very thing that has made America great will be lost in a bureaucratic swirl of ineptitude. Repeatedly throughout history the US has come to the rescue by championing what is good and standing up to tyrants and thugs. If we reduce our military capabilities, we will reach a tipping point beyond which the US might never again be able to initiate appropriate action on its own. It will become weaker than the collective voice of other member states in the UN and be forever subordinate to that body’s approval.

 

[jbrown329]

I’m curious to know which country presently has the strongest army on the planet. The US spends a significant portion of its resources on “national defense” – lots more than any other country. Does all that spending make the US military the strongest, or do other factors come into play?

One of the “complaints” of Democratic Socialists within the US (according to my own impromptu research) is that massive military spending by the US could be better diverted to efforts that support the more immediate needs of its own people at home. Is it reasonable to speculate that the US is carrying more than its fair share of the efforts and costs involved in “policing” actions around the world and for US citizens to therefore demand that other countries step up and provide more of their resources to support those efforts?

Do we really need to spend this much?

 

[evanrick]

Biden and Hillary both voted for the Iraq War. Biden supports TPP, Hillary has not said she opposes it.

 

[Brian Smith]

Well, right now, opposition to Hillary Clinton is based heavily on her being perceived widely as the "big bully" in the field. In situations like that, it's not unusual for people to run to someone who is perceived as a relative outsider.

I think that Clinton will actually get back her political edge during a more competitive race for the nomination. There is a passionate side to that lady, and when that part of her comes out, I think that Democrats will find a lot more enthusiasm for her. Clinton is very strong on a certain number of causes, particularly children's right to adequate education. I have confidence that a more competitive race will dig that fire out of her, and it is a very politically marketable cause.

 

[opinterph]

It seems that some socialist political leaders/organizations are taking exception to Senator Sanders’ failure to distinguish the principles of his campaign platform from corporate capitalism, militarism, and US imperialism.

[Bernie Sanders] has offered not the slightest hint of what he would do as commander in chief. Four months into the campaign, Sanders makes little or no reference to foreign and military policy in his stump speech. The subject of foreign policy is not even addressed on the Sanders campaign web site, which lists 10 topics, all of them concerned with domestic policy …

The so-called “socialist” has voted repeatedly for vast Pentagon appropriations bills, maintaining funding of the wars he was (rhetorically) opposed to, as well as funding for the CIA, NSA and the rest of the vast American intelligence apparatus, the infrastructure for police-state spying against the American people.

Bernie Sanders: Silent partner of American militarism (World Socialist Web Site; August 27, 2015)

 

[TX-Beau]

Well, right now, opposition to Hillary Clinton is based heavily on her being perceived widely as the "big bully" in the field. In situations like that, it's not unusual for people to run to someone who is perceived as a relative outsider.

Which is funny because last time around the poor dear was just too emotional.

 

[jbrown329]

It seems that some socialist political leaders/organizations are taking exception to Senator Sanders’ failure to distinguish the principles of his campaign platform from corporate capitalism, militarism, and US imperialism.

World Socialist, give me a break.

 

[TX-Beau]

It seems that some socialist political leaders/organizations are taking exception to Senator Sanders’ failure to distinguish the principles of his campaign platform from corporate capitalism, militarism, and US imperialism.

I don't find it at all surprising that SENATOR Sanders isn't the bastion of the Socialist Left he's been purported to be, anyone who's been part of Dem party process can't be far left and get elected - though I might pause before calling him "right wing."

 

[evanrick]

I don't find it at all surprising that SENATOR Sanders isn't the bastion of the Socialist Left he's been purported to be, anyone who's been part of Dem party process can't be far left and get elected - though I might pause before calling him "right wing."

hillarys iraq vote, stance on tpp, banker connections, etc isnt "hurting" her campaign, but it sure is helping bernies.
i really wonder what bernie's colleagues in the senate think of him, some of them are probably happy that hes doing so well, but im guessing most of the democrats in the senate are too beholden to their "party" and support hillary just because.

lets talk about bernie's running mate.

 

[TX-Beau]

hillarys iraq vote, stance on tpp, banker connections, etc isnt "hurting" her campaign, but it sure is helping bernies.
i really wonder what bernie's colleagues in the senate think of him, some of them are probably happy that hes doing so well, but im guessing most of the democrats in the senate are too beholden to their "party" and support hillary just because.

lets talk about bernie's running mate.

There is plenty of shit to toss at both of them from the left. Hilary however would have been considered a Moderate REPUBLICAN 40 years ago. I like a lot of what Bernie has to say, but I have two problems with him, first, I just don't think he'd be an effective President. Second, I'm pretty sure that his appeal will turn out to be regional.

Seeing what is riding about in the 'Pub clown car is frightening, and at this point, I want the most viable candidate possible. I'd vote for Joe over Hilary, but it seems he's too smart to want the Job - other than that, the DNC has once again chosen a candidate for us and forced us to choose crony or crazy.

Sometimes I wish the Republicans would get their shit together and stop fielding radical assholes and bigots.

 

[opinterph]

World Socialist, give me a break.

A number of Socialist political organizations are based in the US. Most seem to hold a consensus that while Bernie Sanders gets lots of things correct; he has unwisely chosen to remain aligned (if not increase his alignment) with the capitalist power structure that is strangling the needs of the 99%.

By choosing to run as a Democratic and not an independent, Sanders is now trapped in the framework of this capitalist party, which is heavily influenced by the military-industrial complex and a belief in the destiny of the US as the world’s number one imperialist power.

An Open Letter to Bernie Sanders Supporters from Solidarity, a socialist, feminist, anti-racist organization (solidarity-us.org; September 10, 2015)

The article linked below has lots of additional links:

We need to win the new left born out of Occupy, public-sector union struggles and the Black Lives Matter movement to breaking with the Democratic Party and building an electoral alternative as a complement to struggle from below. Bernie Sanders' campaign inside the Democratic Party is an obstacle to that project.

The problem with Bernie Sanders (socialistworker.org; May 2015)

I note that there is not complete consensus among Socialists in the US with respect to Senator Sanders’ bid for the presidency. For example, the Democratic Socialists of America has endorsed Sanders.