larrytheimp

I could see Warren actually trying to reign in executive power (not really sure if getting rid of filibuster would help...probably?), Sanders would be a reach. I don't think any of the other candidates would even consider it beyond lip service. Plus the realities of a polarized legislature make governing by EO and asking for stays some of the limited tools the Pres would have to work with, and when there's precedent, it's easy to rationalize it.

Sorry for double post but here's another example of the subtle creep of executive power: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a31075649/justice-sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court-conservatives/ Would love to see next Pres ask congress to strengthen checks on the presidency, especially war powers, but I don't even know how you legislate something like this.

Supposing Sanders wins the nomination, what's the best VP selection to get the biggest turnout where it matters? I feel like he either has to at least offer it to Warren or Castro to unite the party, otherwise go someone from the rust belt or Midwest. Maybe Duckworth? Thoughts?

To piggy back off what others have repeatedly said, Wall Street isn't the economy. Come out to redneck ville and tell me and my neighbors (mostly Republican and Republican leaning independents) that the economy is doing great event though they are still making the same as they did 5 years ago working two jobs 45+ hours a week. Even without the stock market taking a hit Trump is vulnerable here. While he has a very loyal base he also had a lot of people vote for him to say 'fuck the system' and they haven't seen the pay-off.

Maybe this will mollify you

I mean according to establishment Dems anything that happens is the express will of Putin, so probably? I wonder what's having more of an effect on US politics, actual Russian gov't sponsored Facebook ads or the media constantly speculating on anonymous intel leaks right before primaries and caucuses?

UBI and (probably) a JG as well, definitely need universal rent control provisions or property owners will just vacuum it up.

So clearly the smart strategy for any leftist would have been, advocate for John Delaney or Biden or Bloomberg and let moderates fail, in the meantime secretly plot in some basement until the shortest path dictates we actually support someone advocating leftist causes. I get everyone is trying to set themselves up to not be disappointed. What I'll ask now, that I've asked a couple other times, is who's the alternative at this point? What better course of action is there, at this moment, to beat Trump? Sanders, Bloomberg,and Biden, all die onstage during the next debate? A Sanders loss isn't anymore indicative of an m4a loss than Clinton losing meant that people didn't want better healthcare. Because no matter what people say about what it meant, the healthcare in this country is still fucked and all of us with shitty care, expensive care, or no insurance know it. And unless I'm missing something the m4a candidate is the most popular person on either side currently running for president.

The only thing tepid here is Bernie's support for authoritarian regimes compared to the default position of US politicians, which is that authoritarians are great as long as they're our authoritarians.

My point was that, despite Al Gore losing election, the Democratic party didn't disappear overnight. Despite McCain losing in 2008 the GOP was still able to have total control of the US government again. Claiming that any loss is somehow a deathblow to a specific issue or agenda is absurd. It didn't mean running on climate change as an issue was dealt a blow, it meant Gore lost. If Trump beats Klobuchar in November is running as dem dealt a blow? Running as a moderate? Of course not. When Clinton lost to Trump, was any of that lost? You all are attributing all sorts of meaning and to something that isn't there.

The link about the dictators he liked in the 80s is ridiculous, taking shots at him for calling for the abolition if the CIA, ooh, puts him in the same in American class of traitor as JFK (said as much in 1962). @Jace, Basilissas , and others - I think Sanders is the best chance to get Trump out of office. I can understand that others disagree. Yes, would be way better if there was as much support for someone younger with the same platform. Who, right now, has a better chance of getting Trump out of office? Who's going to turn out more votes where they matter? Only half being an asshole when I say 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'.

@DMCi read some commentary on the results last night that said the big winner wasn't Sanders, but was actually Chris Matthews bartender.

"Did Sanders peak too early? Pundits concerned that people will be tired of enthusiasm come November"

I stated that you were going with the characterization of a self-described "grad scho for celebrity gossip" as evidence that Sanders was threatening the press. And that's what it was, a characterization of his behavior that no one else was reporting. My point about MSNBC was that if his behavior was so outrageous, you'd think all the offended journalists would have said something other than to Page Six. There's no ad hominem in there. A sensational publication used sensational language. On another note, I do think that even saying that to any journalist (i use that term loosely here with msnbc) is dumb for Sanders because it looks bad.

Mass suicide duh Eta: Actual response- keep advocating and pursuing goals? Same as anytime you lose an election. Lost the primary in 2016? Won it in 2020. Keep on promoting leftist candidates especially in safe blue districts with moderate reps. Also, with people under 50 Sanders is very popular. Difficult to believe all those people will abandon their views because they don't win right now. What did Al Gore's loss mean for Dems in 2000? The end of the world?