Candy Mountain

    I had a morning epiphany thinking about the petulant Veruca Salt-like "I want it now, Daddy!" demand for a miraculous transformation to all renewables overnight. No upheaval, clean seamless replacement of the most entrenched global industry we have.

    Maybe Bernie is a combination of Grandpad Joe and Willy Wonka, and we're living in his new Chocolate Factory. Only $27 for a chance at a Golden Ticket. Wonderful things happen behind the locked gates with the shadows of Oompa-Loompas taking care of the details. Magic new tasty concoctions, rivers full of mannah, and elevators that burst gloriously & improbably through the roof and off into the skies above. Meanwhile the establishment candy makers lurk SS-style in alleyways trying to derail the candy revolution and steal Bernie's secret sauce.

    No wonder youth are entranced - they've been raised on the most colorful Tim Burton version, with Johnny Depp/Pirates of the Caribbean stint as the slightly psychotic but genially recoverable lead. Everything is doable in the Chocolate Factory - gravity is suspended, and people can be teleported through space (only a bit shrunk), and if the results are too gross and swollen, take it down to have it dejuiced.

    You say you want a Revolution? We all want to change the world. Get your ticket here...


    Why the derision? Sanders never promised an "overnight" transition to renewables. He promised to "work toward a 100 percent clean energy system." Is that not a laudable goal? How else should one motivate people to get out and vote for clean energy? By sourly chiding them to quit dreaming? As I've said many times, the progressive movement was built on dreams. Let's leave it to conservatives to stand athwart history, yelling "Stop dreaming!" 

    PS Sometimes, dreams come true faster than anyone expects

    Bernie Sanders

    Bernie Sanders–Verified account ‏@BernieSanders

    We need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and move to 100 percent renewable energy - and we need to act immediately. #Bernie2016

    1:59 PM - 25 Aug 2015

    Yeah, the purist no-fracking no-nukes 100% percent renewable bit pisses me off - most of "renewables" is still nuclear and hydro. The others are improving, but it's still a long way.

    Even the $15 bit pisses me off. Many including Hillary think $15 is fine in LA and NYC. Not in Topeka or Kalamazoo, where she proposes $12. We know you can *pay* people $15, but the first stats from Seattle show significant job loss and first hints that small businesses like Pho shops may be closing.


    If we're going to say "Dream" let's say "experimental" as well.

    So which part do you disagree with? That we shouldn't move to 100 percent renewable energy or that that we don't need to act immediately?

    I have no problem with you disagreeing with Bernie over the details--nuclear vs hydro, $12 vs $15. What I object to is deriding him and his supporters for aiming too high and fighting for goals that can't be immediately achieved. That's a conservative argument, usually pushed by those who do not want to achieve such goals in the first place.

    I disagree with deriding those who favor a $12-15 range. I disagree with deriding anyone tied to fossil fuels or supportoing fracking when Russia could haveheld Europe hostage 2 years ago. I disagree with deriding those who raise big money for campaigns when campaigns take big money. I disagree with deriding Hillary's strong union endorsements as only establishment. I disagree with comparing Bernie's caucus successes while deriding Hillary's primary successes even tho I have no problem with the party setting up unequal contests to allow fresh blood to compete. I disagree with deriding the economic success of the Clinton years for some cherry-picked litmus issues. I disagree with deriding the 90's crime bill and welfare reform without ever addressing what one might do in crisis in their stead. I disagree with a simplistic view that repealing Glass-Steagall under Clinton was the sole or even main cause of the 2008 meltdown, rather than Bush's cronyist administration not enforcing the laws and doing oversight for 8 years.

    In short, you've got it ass backwards -tthe Sanders side has been dealing in derision and continual character assassination with a penchant for avoiding the details like Hillary's laid out for her plans for much of 8 months. Yeah, we all hate poverty, money in politics, war, racism and pollution. We all sympathize with an "Eat the Rich" outburst here and there. We all want rivers of chocolate and continual successful innovation that leads to the next world-saving breakthrough. And actually we've had a number of promising breakthroughs. But the details are mostly complex or contradictory, such as fracking or rolling electric cars or providing free education. Sadly, were not having the intelligent discussion of details I'd hoped for - we're sniping at rough misreperesentations or simplistic versions of positions.

    Sorry, I just don't have time for the serious policy discussion, seriously. I popped in to make a single point--that deriding progressive ideas for being too big to pass is bad for progressivism.

    I'm not referring to you in particular. If something like the 1994 crime bill gets reduced to a word "predator", it's an effing joke. And so on.

    Dude. Come on. It's YOUR blog, and you start it off with Daddy and Willie Wonka and chocolate etc., and then expect us to feel sorrow that people being unfair to HRC? 

    Anyway. Beyond what idiots on either side say, I worked hard for $15 up here, with the 100% expectation that the INITIAL effects will be to raise unemployment. Existing businesses at the margin fold or cut-back immediately when wages rise, right? And then, given time, the entire history of Western economies tells us people begin to spend their higher wages, businesses begin to adapt, some step into the gap once they see it is sustained, etc. 

    There are no surprises there. Now, if there's NO jobs upturn, within say 12-18 months, I'd say, "$15 is too much."

    As for fracking, errrrrrm, it's got some serious problems big boy. Plus, it's not like it's saving Europe versus Russia one way or another. In fact, faster renewables development may end up being a good way out for them long-term.

    On the politics side, well.... I think you're the one being a bit unfair, Mr PP.

    Look. HRC is the mainstream pick. If there are problems with the system that leads to the candidate being picked, then it's HRC's fricking fault - there's been no one with more power than her over the last 25 years. Nuff whining about the process. She designed it more than Bernie.

    Plus, she's got money, has a massive Foundation, has more inside dope than anyone, has had decades to build buddy networks with the super-delegates, is up the butt of the major corps, you name it.  

    Now, the fact that you're on here complaining about the unfair criticisms of the Bernie brigade? That worries me. HRC should have crushed a 74 year old socialist from Vermont. Full stop. Forget the excuses, she ALMOST BEAT OBAMA. This is fricking Bernie Sanders. She should be crushing him.

    She is, plain and simple, not a good candidate. 

    But, she may well be the one we need to beat back the insane Right. 

    I just worry that she may be the weaker of the two.

    Which is a helluva plight, old boy.

    I agree with much of this but come on, she is beating Sanders fairly easily. What, if she doesn't crush him she's the weaker candidate? Many of the Sanders supporters now were Obama supporters screaming for her to get out of the race because it was clear she had lost. At this point in the race she was doing much better against Obama than Sanders is doing against her.

    Sanders might be the better candidate because he's losing to Hillary by a greater margin than Hillary lost to Obama. That doesn't seem like a very convincing argument to me.

    I donno.

    1243 to 980 against a 74 year old socialist who nobody knew seems to me to be a pretty poor performance. 



    However poor that performance might be it's still hard for me to see how beating him means she's the "weaker of the two."

    Again, Obama's performance against Hillary was so poor that it ended in a virtual dead heat. It was so close that by some measures she beat him. If Hillary's poor performance shows that Sanders is the better candidate what did Obama's even worse performance say about him?

    Grouchy old bastard, you.

    Musk and his buddies puts out a $35,000 car that is quieter, cleaner, safer, needs less maintenance and is faster than any gas-powered piece of shit going, and it's not enough for you? You can commute in it, drive x-country in it, and it's been done in the face of every frigging piece of Big Auto and big Oil going. 

    And yeah, sue me, but YES, you could replace the entire fleet of gas-powered passenger vehicles with EVs today, as long as we build enough factories to make 'em. 

    Besides that, all we need to do is change-over electricity. Which is, frankly, happening at light speed. It always looks like tiny progress at the start, as the industry gears up and doubles and then redoubles its capacity. But today, the cheapest form of electricity in the world is..... wind. It's 2-3 cents/kwh on the Plains. And solar is now coming in with PPA prices of 4-7 cents in multiple nations.

    And storage? Batteries have been outrunning the projections for years now, and various other cool systems - like LightSail - are also coming fast. 

    You're Hil-bent, bro. 

    Enter the Flux. Feel the Bern. 

    I'm a big fan of Elon Musk, but no, building a billion of his version 3 cars is premature, and you have to know batteries are still pretty shitty compared to our need, and the # of charging stations is still way poor compared to gas, and recharge time still sucks. It's the balance of how much to push & subsidize the learning curve and how much to wait for the better generation. Someone thought huge ugly tenement houses in Europe was  great idea, next-ge hipster stuff in 1958, but 20 years later they were regarded as cement monstrosities too big and expensive to dynamite. Cars and chargers are cheaper than apartment complexes, but still a significant expense considering they're still fucking around with smart meters poorly after high profile initiatives 10 years ago.

    I'm hoping for liquid thorium reactors, but not taking out a mortgage on one quite yet. Slowly slowly catch a monkey.

    Yeah, but rewind a few years PP my friend. In 208, Tesla was on bankruptcy deathwatch, hard fired batches of people, the batteries were expensive as hell, and we were only at the Roadster. 

    Batteries now? Under $200 a kwh. Versus maybe $1500 then. That's HUGE change. Actually, enough to make them mainstream. Here's the math. 

    Average car goes maybe 25-30 miles a day, roundtrip. At 4 miles per kwh, you need around 7-10 kwh charge per night. You don't actually need anything more than a household outlet for that, PP. And you can recharge it EASILY over night. Cost? Let's say a 10 kwh battery = $1500 extra. 

    Look at that PP. It's nothing. We're down to nothing. For $1500 in battery, you get to get off gas. 

    People don't realize it because Tesla has gone the all-electric route. But the Chevy Volt and Prius Prime, they can cut your gas use by 80% NOW, with no fancy chargers, for under $2,000 incremental cost, and YOU STILL HAVE GAS BACK-UP FOR LONG TRIPS. 

    These realizations take time to sink in, and the US media isn't able to cope with anything more than the heroic stories of some Genius CEO or other, GEE A GUY WHO WANTS TO GO TO THE STARS!!!! So they aren't going to get the larger change.

    As for nukes and the rest, forget it. They still have some market share, but as techs, nuclear doesn't cut it. Huge capital, huge lead time, NO MARKET SHARE GROWTH GLOBALLY IN 20 YEARS, private sector unwilling to stand behind their own product, and the frigging things are utterly inflexible - i.e. you can't turn them up or down very easily. 

    What am I saying? (Gee. Good question.) What I'm saying is that.... we're further along in the Clean Energy Revolution, and it's actual, hard nuts and bolts, dollars and cents learning curve, than we know. Than we can take in. 

    Doesn't mean Bernie's necessarily a better candidate than HRC, but nor does it make him - at least on this front - a Willie Wonka. 

    (Who was actually always kindof a perv, right?)

    Yes, my brother has a hybrid and brags more than Apple fans about how little gas he uses. It's great. Yes, we had the discussion how we'd rounded the bend on renewables but it,'d still take 30-40 years to transition. The Tesla is also cool because of essentially 0 maintenance, something a hybrid cant promise. I still thin liquid salt reactors are the future, 10 years to successful prototype, but maybe all thjis solar and windmill stuff will derail it. Fucking pervs. Yeah, thats what I wanted to say to begin with, put em on the registry and keep an eye on them. Especially Trump, keeps stealing East European girls like mail order brides is a good thing. Bet he switches to boys and then people'll wake up.

    Someone could sure use a Fizzy Lifting Drink around here.

    Mebbe the kids are inheriting the revolution their grandparents wanted.


    Yeah, the kids are irritating by times.

    But still. On energy stuff, most of the sexual stuff, the justice stuff, equity and justice stuff, they feel to me like they're headed in the wrong direction. 

    Peracles is just bitter that Hil isn't 30 anymore, and left all her ideals down at the Walmart. 

    I'm not bitter at all. We got all the drugs and free love, they get AIDS panic and virtual chatrooms. We had camaros with Holly 4-barrels and they have Teslas they can't afford. But I'm still not buying the swampland in Florida or the space savior Yahweh II landing in Guyana. Even Wired Magazine and Omni have to be taken with a grain of salt and thought

    My son has expressed intense displeasure at having to pick up after the previous generations' keg parties.

    Be careful crossing streets. You just can't hear those electric cars speeding down the avenue.

    Yeah, I hear drone attacks sneak up on you too. And just wait till your kid gets his first tasing - he'll appreciate our simpler pasttimes and quaint dangers.

    Pffft. My Mom packed more punch than your fancy schmancy tasers.

    Considering the Congressional conceit that climate change is a hoax, and in some states, "living off the grid" is punishable by fines, I don't see us going towards renewables at lightning speed.  It would be nice, but it's going to take a long time.  Mention solar energy in a crowded room here in Virginia and you'll get hooted down by shouts of Solyndra!!!!  As if its bankruptcy proves the industry is doomed.

    Consider the free college thing.  69.5% funded by Federal Govt, and 30.5% by states that won't even partially fund health care for their neediest?  As they defund food assistance for the hungry and Planned Parenthood?   And all the other programs under the banner of an aging, angry  loner with zero history of building coalitions for anything.  His endorsements are so few because he never saw the need, or had the desire to network.  It's not that he wouldn't get it all done; he wouldn't get anything done, and then hello President Rubio, or (insert horrible name here) in 2020.

    oh, it's all been said before, and no one is changing anyone's mind.  Just wanted to take up for Perecles.

    Neither Hillary nor Sanders, nor Obama nor FDR or LBJ or any Democratic president, can get anything done as long as these Republicans control the House. How is it any more effective to demand modest energy reforms that Congress doesn't pass than to demand ambitious energy reforms that Congress doesn't pass?

    Because it's easy to imagine a Susan Collins might join in for the less ambitious, and even Mitch McConnell had his moments of reasonableness, which is why he got shoved out, and even Paul Ryan has his moments of reasonableness. And of course Hillary seems to have longer coattails and downticket fundraising, so might decrease the Democratic disadvantage in Congress.

    In the words of the illustrious Mr. Day, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And you call Bernie a dreamer.

    There you go, a shift of 5 is improbable so let's propose hovercraft and mining on the moon and perpetual motion and a billion dollars in every pot. I mention something that's already happened, such as Collins agreeing to meet the Supreme Court nominee or McConnell agreeing to Obama's budget deal, or Hillary filling the DNC coffers with tens of millions for downticket races, and I get derision like I'm dreaming. Sorry to be so reality-bound to not feel my fantasy.

    Yeah, in the last four years, Obama managed to pass a budget bill that extends the status quo and got a Republican senator to agree that he has the right to nominate a Supreme Court justice. It's a legislative tour-de-force.

    None too impressive, and I'm not too impressesd with how little Obama used his position as a bully pulpit. I don't expect Hlary to try to reach across the aisle quite that much or proclaim to be the president of all the people. I expect a more "elections have consequences" approach and I expect Hillary as president will be actively campaigning hard for other Dems, unlike Obama.

    Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't think Hillary is bully pulpit type either. I agree that she'll steer money to down-ballot candidates, but I doubt that will be sufficient.

    I'll say the weak part in my argument is that aside from an acerbic voice at the podium, I dont know what that effective bully pulpit would be. Somehow has to mke Republicans afraid and feel pressured or supremely embarrassed, ignoring any thought of doing the right thing. But I think Hillary will try pushing these buttons much quicker.

    My suggestion: Fight for big, exciting policies with broad popular appeal, and then hammer the Republicans for voting against them.

    Well, not really my idea

    In addition to what Perecles said, I think that Hillary has a more realistic idea of how to get where she wants to go than Bernie, who is depending on a "revolution.".  She has a history of building coalitions and working both sides of the aisle.  Don't worry, I don't think the GOP will be any nicer to her than to Obama, but her learning curve will be much shorter than his, because she knows what to expect.  Surely we can all agree that President Obama has been far more effective these past two years, once he saw the writing on the wall.  She has seen it, read it, and comprehended it.  I think she is smarter than Bernie, and her answers to both policy questions and theoretical ones are carefully thought-out and well-expressed.

    When Bernie was asked about fracking, he said:  "No fracking at all."  No explanation or thought-out response.  Hillary actually educated me with her response, and described how it is different depending on where it is done and why.  I'm not a pro-fracking person, but I appreciate her thoughtful and knowledgable response.

    when they were both asked about Wall Street reform, Hillary discussed several things she wanted to do to reign it in and at the same time protect the millions whose retirement accounts are dependent on the stock market.  It was again a thoughtful answer.  Bernie said, "Wall Street will not like President Sanders."

    That is what I'm talking about.

    President Obama has been far more effective these past two years.

    Yes, indeed, though "more effective" is a low bar. After he finally clued into the fact that Congress won't pass jack shit no matter how much he compromises and gave up on the idea of passing legislation, Obama found ways to work around Congress.

    I don't think the GOP will be any nicer to her than to Obama, but her learning curve will be much shorter than his, because she knows what to expect.

    I should hope that it won't take Hillary four years to figure out that the Republicans won't pass progressive legislation. Indeed, I would hope that she has already figured that out, but her claim to know the right magic to make Republicans pass progressive bills suggests otherwise.

    PS Bernie has already figured it out.

    How is he going to work around Congress? A literal revolution?

    :) How about we call it a major realignment? I'm not convinced that Bernie can pull it off, but I am convinced that we need one if we're ever going to see serious progressive change again.

    Democrats want government to work, so candidates have to say "bipartisan" to appeal to the block of dems that still refuse to face reality are less cynical than we are. Republicans want their candidates to say "no compromise" and insist they act on it.  I doubt that Hillary has any illusions about how the republicans will react to her presidency.

    Then perhaps someone should ask her how she plans to get things done in Congress.

    "If the republicans control the house, and they likely will. And they continue to block all legislation, and they probably will. I won't be able to get anything done."

    That's not really a winning campaign slogan. Do you really want Hillary to say that?  I don't expect Sanders to say, "Looks like the revolution I called for didn't happen so even if elected I will be able to accomplish absolutely nothing."

    Honesty and transparency above all. I want to see their high school transcripts, and yearbooks. Any acne?

    It was just a rhetorical of way of challenging Hillary's argument that she, unlike Sanders, will be able to get things done in Congress.

    Both candidates have ambitious proposals that will not get through congress. The presidency is powerful enough that with a democratic senate they might be able to chip away at the edges to get some incremental changes to make things slightly better. I think Hillary is ready, willing and able to make the most of any opportunities for small changes. I don't think Sanders is. I think he actually is the self righteous purist he plays on the campaign trail.

    Eight years ago I was saying something similar. I argued that Obama was not playing the bipartisanship card for votes. He actually believed he could create bipartisan compromises with the republicans and he really wanted to do that.

    Name one substantive progressive legislative change that Obama has achieved in the last 5 years. (Letting the Bush tax cuts expire doesn't count. They were going to expire anyway without congressional action.)

    Bonus question: Name one substantive progressive legislative change that you expect Hillary Clinton to accomplish with a Republican House.

    I can't think of anything substantial accomplished by President Obama

    Name all the the substantial legislation passed by Bernie Sanders in Congress.

    Note: Naming post offices does not count.

    Surprising people still question whether Sanders accomplished anything in Congress since I've repeatedly posted on this topic.  I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see.  From a previous post here:


    Thanks for asking about Bernie Sanders' accomplishments CVille Dem.  Here are a few.

    Last year, he won the Veterans of Foreign Wars award for best member of Congress.  Here's the announcement:

    With eight years on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee — two of them as chairman — it is no understatement to say that Senator Sanders has taken care of wounded, ill and injured veterans and their surviving family members,” said Stroud. “He has been a commanding voice against changing the COLA calculations for disabled veterans, for the proper care and treatment of women veterans, homeless veterans, for better employment opportunities and improved access to mental health programs, as well as increased congressional oversight of the VA claims processing transformation,” he said.  

    “And when the VA imploded last year, he was the lead negotiator for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, which the president signed into law last summer,” said the VFW national commander. “The VA still has an uphill climb to fix what’s broken, to hold employees appropriately accountable, and to restore the faith of veterans in their VA, but veterans everywhere should be proud and comforted to know that this United States senator has their back in Congress.” 

    Given how much Sanders talks about single-payer healthcare, you'd think he played at least some role when the Affordable Care Act was being legislated.  He did.  As Common Dreams noted on December 19, 2009:

    A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.

    The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

    It turns out these centers have been so important to the success of the program, President Obama announced last year that the opening of "hundreds [more] community health centers in underserved areas nationwide with funding from the Affordable Care Act."

    But I just told you that I don't expect any substantive change from the next president, whether it's hillary or Sanders. The most I hope for is they "might be able to chip away at the edges to get some incremental changes to make things slightly better." So I don't understand why you're asking me this question.

    The most important thing for me this election is that it will flip the Supreme Court 5-4 red to 5-4 blue if the democrats win. Maybe more. That will make a big difference for years.


    Ok, give me any change then. What edges has Obama chipped? Even his toothless gun-control proposal, following on the heels of one the most horrific mass-murders in American history, failed miserably. So what incremental changes lay in store for us under Hillary Clinton?

    Supreme Court sure, no question, but that's a separate issue.

    How does the Supreme Court magically become a separate issue. Obama played the GOP perfectly with his two nominees so far. His new nominee will shift the Court away from the far right. Since Sanders did nothing in Congress, what evidence do we have that he can do anything with the GOP as President? We also have the issue that Sanders is so arrogant that he is not willing to support the opportunity to help gain Control of the Senate because he does not financially support down ticket Democrats.

    The split is that some see Sanders magically giving rise to a Senate takeover because of long coattails. Other see  Hillary supporting downstream candidates and as someone who sat through a Benghazi hearing that made the wingnuts appear incompetent. Worse case scenario, a terrorist attacks occurs, Hillary can point to being there when Bin Laden got taken down. Sanders is the wild eyed Socialist with no experience handling serious security issues. During the financial crisis, Obama was calm, while McCain rushed back to DC to do nothing. After Hurricane Sandy, Romney rushed a press conference and appeared to be uncombed and irrational. Obama stayed calm. I'll stick with Hillary.

    What edges has Obama broken? Healthcare, or is that a separate issue too?

    Regarding the issue of the failure of Obama' "weak" gun control bill makes me support Hillary even more given Sanders horrible record on gun control. Sanders vote blocks attempts by the relatives of Sandy Hook victims to sue gun manufacturers.


    In this part of the thread with C'ville, PP, O-k, and now you, I've been making one point and one point only--that neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders nor any other Democratic president can get progressive legislation through Congress as long as Republicans control the House, any more than Obama has since the 2010 election.

    This seems obvious to me, and I've yet to hear a single example of a progressive plan that Hillary can realistically get the Republican leadership to approve. Yet, none of my interlocutors has conceded this point.

    I thought your point was that Obama got nothing Progressive done, I pointed out the Affordable Care Act.

    I think that Hillary's problem is that she is pragmatic about the obstruction she will receive from Republicans. Sanders is selling that he will usher in a Progressive revolution.


    That's because you weren't paying attention. ;) Every time, I mentioned Obama's legislative accomplishments, I specified "the last 5 years."  In any case, it doesn't matter how pragmatic Hillary is because the Republicans aren't negotiating in good faith. There is no progressive deal to be had by either Clinton or Sanders as long as the GOP holds Congress, period.

    We are agreed that the House is a major impediment.

    1) I think Hillary is more likely to improve Democrats' % in both houses - I don't mean Blue Dogs either.  THis election, the next, the next.... The Democratic ground game has been largely shut down under Obama - both Clintons are much more pro-active in other people's elections. Team players and all...

    2) My feeling is that Hillary will be a better negotiator than either Obama or Sanders - in getting what I want, not just what she wants. That of course is speculation, but she knows how the sausage is made and she knows how to pull in favors and build up political capital. You can see that just in "establishment" endorsements including hundreds of high level politicians, union leaders, and stars. Bernie's political base is pretty powerless.

    3) The back-and-forth about legislation passed is pretty misleading - there's a lot of legislation sponsored by GOP & Dems, and none of the candidates on either side has had a lot of success.

    4) The President is in charge of how laws are enforced, which violations are challenged, and a myriad of issues from environment, trade, law enforcement, civil rights, voting rights, drugs, trade policy, security, health issues, wars, etc. Even if the next president passes 0 legislation, the management of those services would be more to the left under either Hillary or Bernie than under Obama, and far to the left of any possible GOP contender. However, I'm pretty sure Hillary's a better manager, especially at the federal level.

    5) Hillary has a much better chance of rallying women to bash in the 1 super GOP issue of the last 20 years, abortion rights. I have little confidence that a man can shame other men into reversing this, while a woman can better point out the hypocrisy and bring some long-needed GOP women's power to bear. And while everyone's talking about the Supreme Court, the President nominates a lot of other judges, largely held up under Obama. Sanders' self-avowed socialism will provide ready-made grist for the Republican obstruction machine.

    Thanks, PP. Given Congress's intransigence he question you address in #1 and #5--who is more likely to change Congress--is critical, and it has not been getting enough attention around here.

    I agree that Hillary would send more money downstream and that the woman turnout could be a big deal in 2016, especially against Trump.

    On the other hand, I don't think she is popular enough to have long coattails, and I doubt that she'll be able to draw the kind of turnout that Obama managed.

    I think Sanders has two strengths that Clinton lacks.

    The first is strategic. Those big, dreamy ideas that you criticize mobilize voters. If Sanders pushes a popular bill to increase Social Security or make public colleges free, and Republicans shoot it down, people who back the bill won't blame Sanders; they'll blame the Republicans. Why do you think Republicans voted a million times to kill Obamacare? Not because they thought it would succeed the millionth time. They did it to mobilize the base to elect more Republican congresspeople.

    By contrast, when a compromise bill fails, no one mobilizes. The defeat of Simpson-Bowles did not drive midterm turnout. Nor did the defeat of Obama's waterered-down gun bill.

    Sanders' second strength is a matter of timing. The electorate is angry. The congressional candidates who can harness this anger will not be pragmatic centrists who gravitate toward Clinton and DNC. They will be populist insurgents who gravitate toward Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Democrats need to nurture this groundswell, and Clinton isn't the right person to nurture it.

    Even if your coattail theory is true, Sanders needs to be funding the effort to fund downstream campaigns. It may be that he hates corporate funding so much that he is unwilling to associate himself with campaigns sullied by accepting corporate dollars. If so, he may be of no real value since outside money is required to support most campaigns.

    Comes out a hypocrite if he does.

    But DNC is short of cash - will be hard to compete at state level without some sugar daddy/mama

    Response to MW here due to space.

    1) I don't expect her "compromise bills" to feel as compromised as Obama's.She's not "no drama". Even if she famously derided the "abortions and health care for illegals" framing.

    2) I think this "hated" bit is overrated (she had high positives in 2013 and she's getting millions of votes even if not a Lolapalooza concert feel) and did in 2008. And I don't think the populace is quite angry in the way media likes to frame it. Sure, youth want a revolution (which is what caucuses cater to), for thousands of years, while most Dem voters seem content with reasonably progressive ideas and I'd guess wage stagnation, wealth inequality and crappy piecework jobs are the biggest issues on the table.. Neither is presenting status quo, though Hillary is building on Obama rather than disavowing him, the only real hand she can play, and most Dem voters are content with her approach.  When it comes to November, there will be plenty of $12-15 min wage and student loan relief and plans to extend Obamacare and plans to lower police abuse and plans tocreate jobs and plans to fight for abortion rights to keep people engaged. And if done rigjt, it'll give Dems some traction in the south to make use of her popularity to give a few Dem candidates a helping hand, whereas with Bernie they'd have to run against the nominee and disown at least some of his non-mainstream ideas.

    1) True, "no drama" isn't her issue. But "wonky" is her issue. If you want to mobilize voters to fight for an idea, keep it simple. (The wonky details are important eventually, but only when you have the votes to actually pass a bill.)

    2) I agree that "hated" is an exaggeration, but I don't see her ever being "loved."


    For #2, in poll after poll in 2012 she was at 66% favorability, a peak she'd hit in 1999. Pew provides her lifetime stats, which compared to many public figures, never bottom out that low - after 1997, the lowest is 48%. Yes, there's a cottage industry of Hillary haters that will never go away, but yes, by convention time she will be loved much more than Mondale or Dukakis or John Kerry or Al Gore, much less Ted Cruz or Donald Trump who make Hillary-hate seem anodyne. And yes, people will be tugging their little girls to go see Hillary to show that "you too can be president", the "any woman but not that woman" fervor long subsided.

    Wonky? Okay, she's wonky. As she admits, she's not a natural politician, didnt see herself in front of the mic/camera until 1999 after deep reflection. Some might say that's a plus.

    Hillary's "Listening Tour" across New York in 2000 seemed to have made her quite loved, or appreciated if that's too strong. Hillary's time in South Carolina listening to black women speak seems to have drawn raves and support as well - in this case "loved". Perhaps we're confusing pep rallies with other kinds of displays of "love". Hill Girl does alright when she finds her groove & doesn't panic. She's the methodical one, the letter writer, the list keeper.

    And if you listened to men talk about their wives, you might think not many are loved, yet the divorce rate isn't that high. Go figger.

    They have to say "bipartisan" to get past pundits who insist Americans want bipartisanship more than getting their way.

    No PP. I've seen several polls with a plurality or a majority of dems want bipartisan legislation and a plurality or majority of republicans want no compromise.

    By funding downstream candidates, Hillary may aid in changing the Congressional makeup. Sanders wants to strike out on his own.

    Yes she's helping downstream candidates like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who took the fetters off payday loan operations that exploit poor and working Americans.

    Clinton's funding may help Democrats capture the Senate. Do you want Hillary to end funding downstream Democrats because it might aid Wasserman-Schultz? What is Bernie Sanders plan to capture the Senate?

    If Sanders somehow captures the Democratic nomination and wins the general, he'll have extraordinarily long coattails that will likely carry Democrats to the majority in the Senate.

    Unicorns. In the real world campaigns cost money. The Democrats face a cash crunch and Bernie is not helping.

    All I see is supporters wanting a revolution with no reality based plan to get anything done. 


    "[O]h, it's all been said before, and no one is changing anyone's mind."  Could anything change your mind?  Can you imagine any evidence or data that could persuade you that Bernie Sanders would be a better President than Hillary?

    I'll admit I can't think of anything that anybody could say or do at this point that would convince me that she would be better than he.

    That is my point, Hal.  We all have all the objective information.  There isn't anything go that will change my mind unless I find out that I was wrong, and Bernie has dozens of friends in the Senate and House he can call on to help him push things through.  The fact that he decided to use the Democratic infrastructure while whining complaining about rules that have been in place for a long time before he ever stooped to run as a Democrat.


    Right.  Your concerns and mind are very different.  You're voting for Clinton because the Democratic establishment prefers her.   I'm voting for Sanders because Clinton's actions demonstrate she will act contrary to the best interests of the 99%. 

    You once again insult me by pretending to read my mind as to why I support Hillary  I have explained numerous times why I think she is better prepared to be President, and also why Bernie is unprepared and incapable

    Right.  Your concerns and mind are very different.  You're voting for Clinton because the Democratic establishment prefers her.   I'm voting for Sanders because Clinton's actions demonstrate she will act contrary to the best interests of the 99%. 

       I am sick of the holier than thou BS, and like Hillary, I am sick of the lies.

    PS.   Taxes?  So his wife hasn't done them for this year...what about the other seven?

    BTW, I had a much more complicated answer but my power was cut off and everything was lost.


    Did I mention this blog's for Hal? Yep, buddy - we're voting for establishment, like all grownups. You want a Rainbow Festival to get nekkid and run around with squirrels, have at it. Burning Man if you want pyrotechnics. There, that discussion's closed.

    Thank God I'm finally on the side of the pervs. 

    Guess I'm finally old enough. 

    Somehow this doesn't seem right, but hey.... America.



    RiteAid - we are the world. Amurikkka, bubba - we want the world and we want it now....

    perv => pervatin.

    marv => marvel comixx

    Mike called you guys "interlocutors" up there earlier.

    When tempers get raised to that level, you know me - I back off. 


    I regret the locution

    It's not enough to regret. Did you apologize and make amends? Did you do penance? Did you dance the watusi? I still feel all dislocuted, but part of that may be Quinn, he has that effect. In any case, step to it.

    You recoil against my claim: "You're voting for Clinton because the Democratic establishment prefers her."  I wrote that because you wrote: "There isn't anything [] that will change my mind [that Clinton is best] unless I find out that I was wrong, and Bernie has dozens of friends in the Senate and House he can call on to help him push things through."

    In your own words, your preference for Clinton is based on the fact she has "dozens of friends in the Senate and House", i.e., the Democratic establishment prefers her.

    Hal, I am actually not as simple minded as you assume.  The weaknesses I see in Bernie have nothing to do with the strengths I see in Hillary.  Bernie Sanders is an aging loner who has irritated many of his cohorts with his "my way or the highway" attitude toward everyone he should have been building coalitions with.  He has absolutely no one he can rely on in Congress, just as he has no record to stand on.  He also has not been vetted because the Republicans want him to win instead of HRC, who they know they can't beat.

    I did not write the words, "Hillary has dozens of friends, etc..."  Please don't ascribe quotes to me that are not mine.  You can quote this:  "Hillary is smarter than Bernie, and knows how to get things done, unlike Bernie."

    I cut and pasted directly from your previous post.  But I appreciate your correction.  Now I understand you are voting against Bernie because he doesn't have dozens of friends in the House and Senate but you are voting for Hillary even though she also doesn't have dozens of friends in the House and Senate.  Makes tons of sense. 

    The bald assertion that "Hillary is smarter than Bernie" is utterly without foundation.  THe claim that she'd be the better President because she "knows how to get things done, unlike Bernie" would have persuasive power if you could point to a number of good things she'd gotten done that outweigh the harm, I and others have painstakingly detailed, that she has caused.

    Hal, you are tiresome, and frankly not worth the effort..  I note that you pick and choose the things you respond to. There is no point, and nothing to be gained by this fake back and forth.  I leave it to others to expose your inconsistencies and lies.  I am done.  Have a nice day!

    Latest Comments