Support NeoGAF

[Piecake]

Oh please. The Democrats have lost the legislator handily both times since 2010. Meanwhile they have done nothing but blame everything on external factors. Voter apathy, gerrymandering, an off chance conservative revolution, etc. Sorry, but it gets a little old constantly playing the blame game.

"What can Democrats do?" There is no straight shoot victory for anything. However, a likely solution would be that they need to find ways to appeal to voters who lean Democrat but aren't gunho about them. The reality is that the majority of voters lean Democrat but a large portion of them don't vote due to being apathetic. This includes poor whites, immigrants, and Hispanics. Yet instead of targeting these groups they do stupid shit like trying to distance themselves from Obama and appealing to conservatives in the 2014 elections when they got slaughtered. Before that they underestimated the right wing after their victory in the 2008 election. It's things like this why people left the more moderate aisle of the Democrats in the first place.

So, you don't have shit either, gotcha.

You don't think it is their plan to appeal to more people like that? Just because they fucked up doesnt change the fact that that is their over-arching plan. And you act like if they didn't fuck up that it would have made a difference. Hate to say it but it probably wouldnt have because midterm elections always result in lower turnouts and usually result in lower democratic turnout and lower presidential party turnout/voters. There is only so much a major party can do to get people to vote.

 

[jaekeem]

This is more in the line of what I'm talking about. A legitimate strategy.
It still seems very similar to what has been done before and I doubt it will work, but it is four years too early.

Regardless I think its still disingenuous for people to criticize Sanders for being "planless" when he just emerged onto the presidential scene less than a year ago and only really became a contender two months ago. Hillary and co. have had years to formula this plan.

How is that disingenuous?

If you're competing for the POTUS then joining the race late is not an excuse for lacking an equivalently formulated plan.

 

[eBay Huckster]

What he says the president can't do is determine how they break themselves up, not that administration, either through Dodd-Frank or some mythical new legislation, can't start the breakup process.

And the direct question was "And what does that presage for your program?" "That" = last week's MetLife decision. Taking a specific answer to a specific question and applying it to an general issue "he's been talking about that issue for his entire career" (as B-Dub put it) is classic political disinformation.

From the interview, this is the specific segment I can only read as contradictory:

"Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do."

-->

"Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator."

He literally says the President has the authority under Dodd-Frank to make the TBTF determination before walking that back within what I can imagine were a couple minutes!

 

[Suikoguy]

This is more in the line of what I'm talking about. A legitimate strategy.
It still seems very similar to what has been done before and I doubt it will work, but it is four years too early so there's always a chance. It's also the matter of how they will push and market those challengers as we saw in the last election, which is my main concern.

Regardless I think its still disingenuous for people to criticize Sanders for being "planless" when he just emerged onto the presidential scene less than a year ago and only really became a contender two months ago. Hillary and co. have had years to formula this plan. They already seem to be doing a more grassroots approach and Sanders at least seems willing to kick DWS out to the curb.

Other than the Payday nonsense, what exactly has DWS done wrong? Should she be in charge of the DNC? No. Should she be in office as a rep? Why not?

 

[Armaros]

This is more in the line of what I'm talking about. A legitimate strategy.
It still seems very similar to what has been done before and I doubt it will work, but it is four years too early so there's always a chance.

Regardless I think its still disingenuous for people to criticize Sanders for being "planless" when he just emerged onto the presidential scene less than a year ago and only really became a contender two months ago. Hillary and co. have had years to formula this plan. They already seem to be doing a more grassroots approach and Sanders at least seems willing to kick DWS out to the curb.

He has been fighting for these things his entire political career? You thing Ted Kennedy didn't have any idea what to propose for Health care?

Or how about Biden not knowing any specific provisions in the Violence against Women's act?

 

[zero shift]

So, you don't have shit either, gotcha.

I just told you. Not to mention people like you were the one's who started the initial statement of "not having plans to win the legislator".

You don't think it is their plan to appeal to more people like that? Just because they fucked up doesnt change the fact that that is their over-arching plan..[/QUOTE]

Of course it does.If they didn't do it they past seven years, why would they do so now?

Other than the Payday nonsense, what exactly has DWS done wrong? Should she be in charge of the DNC? No. Should she be in office as a rep? Why not?

I was referring to her being in charge of the DNC.

He has been fighting for these things his entire political career? You thing Ted Kennedy didn't have any idea what to propose for Health care?

Or how about Biden not knowing any specific provisions in the Violence against Women's act?

I think you quoted the wrong post of mine. I assume this is about the bank break-up?

 

[Link]

Ugh. OT-GAF has become extremely toxic with Hillary supporters in anything Bernie related. They keep pushing the "one issue", "only white millennials", "bernie bros", "people don't actually go vote for him" narrative on top of misquoting and straight up make up lies about him that debunking every one of this narrative is useless since it has become a circle-jerk of Hillary supporters.

"Yo Bernie answer this complex issue that requires many experts to actually give a cohesive answer in one sentence."

"I'll be honest, I don't know everything."

THIS MAN IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT, BERNIE BROS GET IN LINE AND VOTE FOR YAS QUEEN. ~ HillaryGAF.

I honestly don't see why should Bernie supporters go out and vote in swing states for someone that is slightly better than conservatives but against their core believes and morals when said candidate's supporters constantly belittles them, compares them to the Tea-Party (aka racist) and are so condescending and smug. This attitude will only backfire on Hillary.

Do you honestly feel like this helps your case?

 

[HariKari]

Sanders can ask Neel Kashkari for advice:

Before Neel Kashkari took office as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis last month, he was largely known as Washington's former bank bailout czar, the point man charged with overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program during the financial crisis. "I helped design TARP. I ran TARP under two presidents," the Republican ex–Goldman Sachs banker later told reporters, at the start of his incredibly quixotic run for governor in California. “I own TARP.”

Suffice it to say, this is not the résumé of a typical anti–Wall Street firebrand. And so the finance world was a bit shocked Tuesday when Kashkari, in his first public speech as a Fed president, suggested that large banks were still too big to fail, and that it might be time to break them up. He compared the financial system to a nuclear reactor that needed to be kept from melting down and argued that while regulators may be prepared to handle the failure of a single large bank during a healthy economy, he was “far more skeptical” they could cope with multiple failures amid another full-blown crisis.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...reak_up_too_big_to_fail_banks_and_bernie.html

It's not a crazy idea.

 

[Piecake]

Well, it depends.

I find people like Dan Lipinski and Tulsi Gabbard to be pretty repugnant. Both are in safe-D seats. I'd like to see them gone.

On the other hand, people like Elizabeth Etsy (who is in a marginal D seat yet still wins) or a Kyrsten Sinema should never be primaried.

How we fix it is make general elections more competitive. I think it is pretty silly to go after some sort term gains but make a much more serious problem a whole lot worse.

 

[ivysaur12]

Who the fuck cares about Tim Carnova

If you're actually trying to elect Berniecrats that have an actual shot at winning, why not focus on Zephyr Teachout and Lucy Flores? I'm already going to give money to both. Along with Denise Juneau, my lesbian Montana waifu.

If you want, I can even make a thread about who to give to on downticket races.

How we fix it is make general elections more competitive. I think it is pretty silly to go after some sort term gains but make a much more serious problem a whole lot worse.

I actually think it's okay to target key Congressional seats that are not competitive except in the primary. Both of those people are pretty awful, so I'd be okay with taking them (and a few others) out. But the Dem caucus is pretty liberal at the moment because there are so few of them.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Who the fuck cares about Tim Carnova

If you're actually trying to elect Berniecrats that have an actual shot at winning, why not focus on Zephyr Teachout and Lucy Flores? I'm already going to give money to both. Along with Denise Juneau, my lesbian Montana waifu.

If you want, I can even make a threat about who to give to on downticket races.

Please do - your tweetstorm on how to donate to the most competitive Senate races was really helpful when you posted about it about a month back.

 

[johnsmith]

Even though I'm personally far left on the political spectrum, and called myself a socialist long before Sanders ever ran for president, I never got on board the Sanders hype train, as it became apparent almost immediately that he was a demagogue, with no realistic plan of ever implementing a single policy.

I saw how hard it was for the Democrats to pass Obama's healthcare bill, how it was almost derailed by Ted Kennedy's passing. 59 seats in the Senate, and control of the House was not enough to pass more than a centrist Healthcare bill. How do you expect me to believe that you will get single payer healthcare passed? I'm not an idiot, Bernie. Don't bullshit me.

He has done nothing to build the movement that would be needed nationwide to elect a Democratic house and senate, that is how you get things passed. Not talk of "revolution."

This is his plan to get his policies passed.

What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]

And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.​

TLDR: Get people to post on facebook to fly down to Washington DC and threaten their congressmen.

 

[ivysaur12]

Please do - your tweetstorm on how to donate to the most competitive Senate races was really helpful when you posted about it about a month back.

I will make a thread, not a threat.

 

[zero shift]

Sanders responded to "we'll see" when asked about supporting downticket Dems. That alone is frustrating to people who have been working hard to undo the mess that happened in 2010.

That is understanding, but you have to keep in mind that he has to campaign for himself first foremost to even have chance to get in the office. Hillary is a well established name while he is brand new to the mainstream. The context of the two candidates are very different. But yes I can see why that would be frustrating for those knowing that the real power is in congress..

 

[TheLaughingStock]

\The only people who'll really know how to do it (and what consequences come as a result) are not people we'll be electing, but specialists brought into an administration. Forgive me if I'm horribly wrong and feel free to laugh.

He won't be bringing any specialists who were around during the heydays of the OTS or NCFIRRE because he'll be watching Hillary from the sidelines. What a waste of people's time...

 

[Marion Cobretti]

Regardless of whether they're monopolies or not, TR went after them because he was opposed to the idea of a company being so big and powerful that they could take down the economy if they wanted to, or failed.

How is this any different? Again, I realize it was a 100 years ago, but the idea seems the same to me. I don't doubt the implications would be very different.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

From the interview, this is the specific segment I can only read as contradictory:

He literally says the President has the authority under Dodd-Frank to make the TBTF determination before walking that back within what I can imagine were a couple minutes!

Here's how I read it as not contradictory...

Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...

They're different answers to different questions. The first section is discussing the authority to determine that banks are TBTF and have to be broken up, the second is discussing the mechanics of actually breaking them up, which, as I read it, Bernie would leave up to the companies themselves to determine exactly how to break themselves up.

 

[Juice]

I honestly don't see why should Bernie supporters go out and vote in swing states for someone that is slightly better than conservatives but against their core believes and morals when said candidate's supporters constantly belittles them, compares them to the Tea-Party (aka racist) and are so condescending and smug. This attitude will only backfire on Hillary.

That's an obvious question. Because no matter how bad your feelings are hurt, if you vote for anyone other than the democratic ticket, you'll be supporting:

- Stripping voting rights from the poor and minorities
- reversing gays of their right to marry
- banning abortion and limiting access to contraception
- religiously-motivated warmongering in the Middle East
- killing people who'd die without the healthcare they attained under the ACA.

It'd take a pretty fucking high horse to be cool with all of that just to show your disdain over the conduct of another candidates supporters in a video game forum on he Internet.

 

[Meowster]

This makes him look so.. unpresidential. I don't know, maybe it's just me, this is something he should have been looking into.

 

[Piecake]

I just told you.

You don't think it is their plan to appeal to more people like that? Just because they fucked up doesnt change the fact that that is their over-arching plan..

Of course it does.If they didn't do it they past seven years, why would they do so now?[/QUOTE]

But that isn't anything different than what the democrats are already doing. That is their long term strategy. They certainly have made tactical errors when trying to win elections. Obviously it would be nice if those two lined-up, but tactics don't necessary change the strategy and I don't see any indication that the democrats are doing that.

 

[CertifiedFP]

It's no use to have a revolution if those in charge of the revolution can't keep the trains running on time.

Freudian Slip there on how America is slowly sliding into Fascism of the 1%?

Anyone know if Mussolini falls under Godwin's Law?

 

[ivysaur12]

That is understanding, but you have to keep in mind that he has to campaign for himself first foremost to even have chance to get in the office. Hillary is a well established name while he is brand new to the mainstream. But yes I can see why that would be frustrating.

I also understand that. What bothers me is that if we're talking about fundamentally changing the Democratic caucus, that does not happen with one person. It needs to be a large, coordinated, targeted effort. And the irony of all of this is that the effort put into electing Bernie (that ultimately will not come to pass because he will not get the nomination) actually could be extremely effective targeting 20-ish key primary races for downticket Democrats that actually could win in November.

 

[jaekeem]

Regardless of whether they're monopolies or not, TR went after them because he was opposed to the idea of a company being so big and powerful that they could take down the economy if they wanted to, or failed.

How is this any different? Again, I realize it was a 100 years ago, but the idea seems the same to me. I don't doubt the implications would be very different.

TR didn't live in a world of global financial hubs like New York?

If you break up all these big banks then you impair their inability to give out loans and deal with financial transactions equivalent to their size

The presumption that their dismantling would somehow be a cure for the finance sector and any possible systemic risks it presents is not necessarily wrong, but it's not anywhere close to certain enough to justify such decisive action that could have global repurcussions

 

[Squirrel Killer]

That's an obvious question. Because no matter how bad your feelings are hurt, if you vote for anyone other than the democratic ticket, you'll be supporting:

- Stripping voting rights from the poor and minorities
- reversing gays of their right to marry
- banning abortion and limiting access to contraception
- religiously-motivated warmongering in the Middle East
- killing people who'd die without the healthcare they attained under the ACA.

It'd take a pretty fucking high horse to be cool with all of that just to show your disdain over the conduct of another candidates supporters in a video game forum on he Internet.

There are other tickets out there than the Republican and Democratic ones.

 

[B-Dubs]

Regardless of whether they're monopolies or not, TR went after them because he was opposed to the idea of a company being so big and powerful that they could take down the economy if they wanted to, or failed.

How is this any different? Again, I realize it was a 100 years ago, but the idea seems the same to me. I don't doubt the implications would be very different.

Those companies TR railed against controlled entire industries. They were hundreds of times more powerful than the banks of today. You're misrepresenting what anti-trust law is for. If Standard Oil decided you weren't getting any oil, then you weren't getting any oil. They controlled the means of production, materials, they controlled everything about their respective industries. Imagine if Microsoft controlled everything from silicon production and copper mines, all the way through you buying a computer at Best Buy.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Here's how I read it as not contradictory...

They're different answers to different questions. The first section is discussing the authority to determine that banks are TBTF and have to be broken up, the second is discussing the mechanics of actually breaking them up, which, as I read it, Bernie would leave up to the companies themselves to determine exactly how to break themselves up.

I guess we're just reading the answer differently - I see it as walking back the "what" given that the Editorial Board doesn't specify (in either the initial question or the subsequent exchange) how but rather if the President had the authority to make the determination order, while you're seeing it simply as not specifying how, with the "if" not really being germane by that point.

 

[StopMakingSense]

This is his plan to get his policies passed.

What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]

And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.​

TLDR: Get people to post on facebook to fly down to Washington DC and threaten their congressmen.

Which is the stupidest shit I've ever heard, especially coming from a legislator. He knows how bills are scheduled for votes. He can't force the republicans to bring a vote to the floor of the house. This is literally make believe.

Yeah, the Republicans will make a decision all right, they'll laugh it out the door in their committee hearings.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Regardless of whether they're monopolies or not, TR went after them because he was opposed to the idea of a company being so big and powerful that they could take down the economy if they wanted to, or failed.

How is this any different? Again, I realize it was a 100 years ago, but the idea seems the same to me. I don't doubt the implications would be very different.

It has been explained to you already. Everything the President can and cannot do is a matter of legality and there are laws in the books on what you can do in the case of a monopoly.

 

[akira28]

Bernie Sanders cannot come up with specifics for the only issue that he consistently stumps for.

Let that sink in

Its still something that needs to be done. They made an enormous legal tangle, it will take time to untangle it. The knot is still ugly as fuck and I want it to go away.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Its still something that needs to be done. They made an enormous legal tangle, it will take time to untangle it. The knot is still ugly as fuck and I want it to go away.

Ok, but he's been going on this issue for decades. Isn't that enough time to at least start looking into avenues of how it could be achieved? Or did knowing how to achieve one of his goals not matter if he wasn't running for president?

 

[Staccat0]

Meh, that's fine I guess, but I wish those people would at least not be lazy by at the very least trying to understanding what different policy proposals are?

This has probably been said in every election ever. Certainly going back to the first ones I voted in. You aren't wrong though.

 

[Piecake]

Regardless of whether they're monopolies or not, TR went after them because he was opposed to the idea of a company being so big and powerful that they could take down the economy if they wanted to, or failed.

How is this any different? Again, I realize it was a 100 years ago, but the idea seems the same to me. I don't doubt the implications would be very different.

That is not true at all. TR busted up trusts who engaged in unfair business practices. He made deals with other trusts if they were willing to stop doing that, and left others completely alone if they did not engage in unfair business practices.

It had very little to do with too big to fail.

 

[Link]

I will make a thread, not a threat.

 

[Azzanadra]

Still better than the competition. He doesn't have the answers to everything, and he doesn't pretend like he does. Either way, he's still better than the competition who, from a Canadian perspective, are all right wing loonies. Clinton included. Heck, Sanders would be a moderate here. Do Americans realize that Sanders isn't a hardline leftist so much as he is just simply trying to bring America up to speed with the rest of the western world?

He isn't causing a revolution so much as he is just trying to help America reach the 21st century in terms of social services. Heck, we had our healthcare even before that.

 

[akira28]

Ok, but he's been going on this issue for decades. Isn't that enough time to at least start looking into avenues of how it could be achieved? Or did knowing how to achieve one of his goals not matter if he wasn't running for president?

no way to do it unless he's President. He'd have to assemble a team just to try to figure it out. He can have some theories, there are plenty of theories

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I guess we're just reading the answer differently - I see it as walking back the "what" given that the Editorial Board doesn't specify how but rather if the President had the authority to make the determination order, while you're seeing it simply as not specifying how, with the "if" not really being germane by that point.

It's not germane any more because they've moved on to another topic, that is, exactly how the break up would be conducted. That's why they went through the whole digression about climate change.

Seriously, which is more likely, that Sanders doesn't know and is completely contradictory one of the key issues he's been campaigning on and fought for throughout his career, or that he doesn't know a court decision handed down four days ago?

 

[Aaronrules380]

no way to do it unless he's President. He'd have to assemble a team just to try to figure it out. He can have some theories, there are plenty of theories

But he has no theories. He has literally no idea how he'd go about achieving it. I'm not expecting a definitive answer, but having a few ideas would be nice

 

[zero shift]

But that isn't anything different than what the democrats are already doing. That is their long term strategy. They certainly have made tactical errors when trying to win elections. Obviously it would be nice if those two lined-up, but tactics don't necessary change the strategy and I don't see any indication that the democrats are doing that.

Democrats have been losing seats at a rapid rate since 2010. Whatever their long term strategy is it doesn't seem to be working.

Now you can say that they are playing a very long game and have since messed up aspects of that. For example they are pushing seats but messed up who they are targeting with those seats. That being said, it isn't like they are doing this in a walled off room (I apologize as I can't think of a better analogy). They are competing against Republicans. While that party is terrible at winning the general election they are pretty good at winning the House. They are also performing other strategies as well which means they can't afford to fuck things up too much.

At best case scenario the Democrats have a reasonable long term strategy to win the House in four years, but are terrible in actually executing a lot of those competitive races, at least as of lately.

Personally I wish a candidate would have the balls to shout for proportional representation like Sanders does for breaking up the banks. It is the best solution for Democrats getting out of this mess, but unfortunately the voting body is too apathetic.

 

[Juice]

There are other tickets out there than the Republican and Democratic ones.

LOL okay. Throwing a vote away on a hopeless third party is as good as abstaining.

 

[Link]

There are other tickets out there than the Republican and Democratic ones.

 

[ivysaur12]

Democrats have been losing seats at a rapid rate since 2010. Whatever their long term strategy is it doesn't seem to be working.

Actually, Democrats gained seats in both chambers in 2012. Then lose seats in both chambers in 2014. They'll likely gain seats in both chambers in 2016.

It's less to do with a "strategy" and more to do with the natural ebbs of what happens when your party controls the presidency and the coalition your party has.

 

[Christopher]

I find it really funny how people are defending him here. "It's totally unrealistic to expect him to know everything...blah blah blah" my ass. He has been advocating for breaking up the banks for months now, and the fact he was clueless about the details just shows that he relying on the emotional appeal to be elected. He probably knows he can't pass 95% of the shit he claims that he will do in his presidency.

98%. I wonder how people would feel if he got elected, and couldn't pass one thing he promised. Hell, look at Obama couldn't pass a damn thing.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

LOL okay. Throwing a vote away on a hopeless third party is as good as abstaining.

See my various posts about whether your vote matters.

 

[Piecake]

Democrats have been losing seats at a rapid rate since 2010. Whatever their long term strategy is it doesn't seem to be working.

Now you can say that they are playing a very long game and have since messed up aspects of that. For example they are pushing seats but messed up who they are targeting with those seats. That being said, it isn't like they are doing this in a walled off room (I apologize as I can't think of a better analogy). They are competing against Republicans. While that party is terrible at winning the general election they are pretty good at winning the House. They are also performing other strategies as well which means they can't afford to fuck things up too much.

At best case scenario the Democrats have a reasonable long term strategy to win the House in four years, but are terrible in actually executing a lot of those competitive races, at least as of lately.

Personally I wish a candidate would have the balls to shout for proportional representation like Sanders does for breaking up the banks. It is the best solution for Democrats getting out of this mess, but unfortunately the voting body is too apathetic.

Because there is only so much a party can do. I really don't think you get that. I really doubt that you would see much increase, if any, if the DNC made all the right plays.

And proportional representation would be nice but it is a unrealistic pipe dream. It is not a plan or a strategy

 

[HariKari]

But he has no theories. He has literally no idea how he'd go about achieving it. I'm not expecting a definitive answer, but having a few ideas would be nice

Even those close to the issue aren't entirely sure how to go about it, because it's such a complicated issue. If there isn't a definitive answer from experts in the system, why would you expect one from Sanders?

He's running on "I'll take a look at breaking up the banks". How does his answer change that?

 

[Big Baybee]

Even those close to the issue aren't entirely sure how to go about it, because it's such a complicated issue. If there isn't a definitive answer from experts in the system, why would you expect one from Sanders?

He's running on "I'll take a look at breaking up the banks". How does his answer change that?

Was he saying "I'll take a look"? I thought he was making much more definitive statements than that?

 

[zero shift]

Actually, Democrats gained seats in both chambers in 2012. Then lose seats in both chambers in 2014. They'll likely gain seats in both chambers in 2016.

It's less to do with a "strategy" and more to do with the natural ebbs of what happens when your party controls the presidency and the coalition your party has.

True. Democrats do better in presidential election seasons. However, the trend doesn't seem to be too encouraging. But I do see where you are coming from.

I also understand that. What bothers me is that if we're talking about fundamentally changing the Democratic caucus, that does not happen with one person. It needs to be a large, coordinated, targeted effort. And the irony of all of this is that the effort put into electing Bernie (that ultimately will not come to pass because he will not get the nomination) actually could be extremely effective targeting 20-ish key primary races for downticket Democrats that actually could win in November.

People need to keep in mind that change happens very slowly. People may reminiscence about how we had huge sweeping changes during the 1930s with the New Deal Era and the 1960s with the Civil Rights Era. What people forget were the previous decades of failures and mishaps for those who campaigned on those changes until they gradually figured out what works.

If we start with Occupy Wall Street as being the Next American Left's first push, then I would say Sanders would be the second. So they went from supporting no candidates to gathering toward one. What will likely happen is that things will keep progressing and improving until, possibly, they will achieve their goals many years down the road. Just like the right wing did after their Goldwater mishap.

Because there is only so much a party can do. I really don't think you get that. I really doubt that you would see much increase, if any, if the DNC made all the right plays.

I fully understand. My issues is that all things considered that party still has made a lot of wrong plays which is a giant red flags. You would see an increase if they did make the right plays. But I think we will both agree that it would be impossible for them to have a super majority on the House and Senate as of now.

And proportional representation would be nice but it is a unrealistic pipe dream. It is not a plan or a strategy

I almost didn't mention it in the post, that is a job for the people not politicians. Still someone could put it out there.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Even those close to the issue aren't entirely sure how to go about it, because it's such a complicated issue. If there isn't a definitive answer from experts in the system, why would you expect one from Sanders?

He's running on "I'll take a look at breaking up the banks". How does his answer change that?

Because he's been rallying on this issue for 20 years and has absolutely no starting point. He didn't need a definitive answer. He needed ideas. Note the guy you mentioned had ideas. Bernie did not

 

[Link]

98%. I wonder how people would feel if he got elected, and couldn't pass one thing he promised. Hell, look at Obama couldn't pass a damn thing.

 

[eBay Huckster]

It's not germane any more because they've moved on to another topic, that is, exactly how the break up would be conducted. That's why they went through the whole digression about climate change.

Seriously, which is more likely, that Sanders doesn't know and is completely contradictory one of the key issues he's been campaigning on and fought for throughout his career, or that he doesn't know a court decision handed down four days ago?

I mean, that's the thing - I'm not sure which one of those to believe, because re-reading that segment he gives a "how" answer to a reiteration of an "if" statement.

Though I'm leaning toward the second with a side of "he really needs to re-read Dodd-Frank, or even just a brief on Title II" regarding the first, because while at one point he correctly cites Treasury as the department actually making the determination, he incorrectly says the Fed or President has anything to do with it afterward. Treasury applies a test to determine TBTF status and default risk, then places them in FDIC receivership (where they get broken up into smaller constituent banks) - there's nothing the Fed or President does there!

(He also throws out "we need to pass another piece of legislation to give Treasury that power" when section 203 of Dodd-Frank already vests it in the department!)