Why the Bernie Movement Must Crush Beto O’Rourke

[RaphaelDLG]

Bernie Sanders is trash. No accomplishments after decades in Congress, failed to build alliances and coalitions, and criticizes everybody’s record when all he does is grandstand, protest, and leave the hard decisions to everybody else. Then when you question his ideas he gets defensive and crotchety. Why would anyone want this idiot to be President?

You are part of the problem.

Nothing I said was a lie. Sanders touts his ideologically pure record but it’s been at the cost of doing nothing significant in his centuries in Washington and having no coalitions in place to get legislation passed as President. Meanwhile he will criticize real leaders who have brokered deals and passed meaningful policy as being establishment. He can miss me with his bullsh**t.

Sanders easily has gotten the most progressive stuff done out of anyone on the Democratic side in the last Congress (which obviously wasn't able to do that much), and has a lot more bipartisan amendments than most other congressmen.  This is not surprising due to his massive political influence that he has accrued, but is also a testiment to his ability to find heterodox conservatives to work with.

I will vote for O'Rourke if he is the nominee and urge other people to do so, but he hasn't done jack while in Congress, so your argument is dumb.

You're right that coalitions to enact Sanders policies haven't existed for a long time, but he's the reason why they are now starting  to exist, thus demonstrating his long term efficacy.

He's the primary factor that shifted the Democratic party dramatically in favor of M4A, one of the few people in favor of real financial reform, one of the few people in favor of taking the big steps needed to tackle the urgent problem of climate change. 

If you disagree that things like that are needed, that is fine.  But other people have a right to tell you why they believe you are wrong without you calling them cultists or trying to silence criticism in the name of party unity.

It's smart to form coalitions to move the ball down the field.  That's why progressives united with centrists to vote for Obamacare, despite it being deeply flawed heritage foundation Romneycare, because it was a step in the right direction that helped millions of people if it didn't address the fundamental problems.

The "big tent" is bad, though, if it results in losses rather than gains - if Democrats and republicans conspire to deregulate industry, cut social security/medicare, go to war in the middle East, etc, as certain members of the democratic big tent have often been inclined to do.

In my view, someone who willingly goes along with that big tent in those scenarios is making an obvious mistake.  You should always be putting pressure on people to do stuff that will move America forward, whether they are in your party or not.

This includes urging people to vote for Hillary Clinton, but it also includes not being afraid to have a frank discussion about the flaws in someone's political record and/or platform.

[RaphaelDLG]

Bernie Sanders is trash. No accomplishments after decades in Congress, failed to build alliances and coalitions, and criticizes everybody’s record when all he does is grandstand, protest, and leave the hard decisions to everybody else. Then when you question his ideas he gets defensive and crotchety. Why would anyone want this idiot to be President?

You are part of the problem.

Nothing I said was a lie. Sanders touts his ideologically pure record but it’s been at the cost of doing nothing significant in his centuries in Washington and having no coalitions in place to get legislation passed as President. Meanwhile he will criticize real leaders who have brokered deals and passed meaningful policy as being establishment. He can miss me with his bullsh**t.

Sanders easily has gotten the most progressive stuff done out of anyone on the Democratic side in the last Congress (which obviously wasn't able to do that much), and has a lot more bipartisan amendments than most other congressmen.  This is not surprising due to his massive political influence that he has accrued, but is also a testiment to his ability to find heterodox conservatives to work with.

I will vote for O'Rourke if he is the nominee and urge other people to do so, but he hasn't done jack while in Congress, so your argument is dumb.

You're right that coalitions to enact Sanders policies haven't existed for a long time, but he's the reason why they are now starting  to exist, thus demonstrating his long term efficacy.

He's the primary factor that shifted the Democratic party dramatically in favor of M4A, one of the few people in favor of real financial reform, one of the few people in favor of taking the big steps needed to tackle the urgent problem of climate change. 

If you disagree that things like that are needed, that is fine.  But other people have a right to tell you why they believe you are wrong without you calling them cultists or trying to silence criticism in the name of party unity.

It's smart to form coalitions to move the ball down the field.  That's why progressives united with centrists to vote for Obamacare, despite it being deeply flawed heritage foundation Romneycare, because it was a step in the right direction that helped millions of people if it didn't address the fundamental problems.

The "big tent" is bad, though, if it results in losses rather than gains - if Democrats and republicans conspire to deregulate industry, cut social security/medicare, go to war in the middle East, etc, as certain members of the democratic big tent have often been inclined to do.

In my view, someone who willingly goes along with that big tent in those scenarios is making an obvious mistake.  You should always be putting pressure on people to do stuff that will move America forward, whether they are in your party or not.

This includes urging people to vote for Hillary Clinton, but it also includes not being afraid to have a frank discussion about the flaws in someone's political record and/or platform.

I don’t disagree with his policies. I want them. I just personally think Sanders is an egotistical, petulant, entitled manbaby who never takes responsibility for anything. Just because I don’t like him doesn’t make me a Third Way/DLC/Moderate Centrist hack. Like.... the only candidate I am resisting as much as Sanders is Biden so my view on him has nothing to do with what you think it does.

What gave you that impression?!? Especially relative to most politicians?

Also, who cares about his personality if he is the most effective and has the best policies?

[RaphaelDLG]

Bernie Sanders is trash. No accomplishments after decades in Congress, failed to build alliances and coalitions, and criticizes everybody’s record when all he does is grandstand, protest, and leave the hard decisions to everybody else. Then when you question his ideas he gets defensive and crotchety. Why would anyone want this idiot to be President?

You are part of the problem.

Nothing I said was a lie. Sanders touts his ideologically pure record but it’s been at the cost of doing nothing significant in his centuries in Washington and having no coalitions in place to get legislation passed as President. Meanwhile he will criticize real leaders who have brokered deals and passed meaningful policy as being establishment. He can miss me with his bullsh**t.

Sanders easily has gotten the most progressive stuff done out of anyone on the Democratic side in the last Congress (which obviously wasn't able to do that much), and has a lot more bipartisan amendments than most other congressmen.  This is not surprising due to his massive political influence that he has accrued, but is also a testiment to his ability to find heterodox conservatives to work with.

I will vote for O'Rourke if he is the nominee and urge other people to do so, but he hasn't done jack while in Congress, so your argument is dumb.

You're right that coalitions to enact Sanders policies haven't existed for a long time, but he's the reason why they are now starting  to exist, thus demonstrating his long term efficacy.

He's the primary factor that shifted the Democratic party dramatically in favor of M4A, one of the few people in favor of real financial reform, one of the few people in favor of taking the big steps needed to tackle the urgent problem of climate change. 

If you disagree that things like that are needed, that is fine.  But other people have a right to tell you why they believe you are wrong without you calling them cultists or trying to silence criticism in the name of party unity.

It's smart to form coalitions to move the ball down the field.  That's why progressives united with centrists to vote for Obamacare, despite it being deeply flawed heritage foundation Romneycare, because it was a step in the right direction that helped millions of people if it didn't address the fundamental problems.

The "big tent" is bad, though, if it results in losses rather than gains - if Democrats and republicans conspire to deregulate industry, cut social security/medicare, go to war in the middle East, etc, as certain members of the democratic big tent have often been inclined to do.

In my view, someone who willingly goes along with that big tent in those scenarios is making an obvious mistake.  You should always be putting pressure on people to do stuff that will move America forward, whether they are in your party or not.

This includes urging people to vote for Hillary Clinton, but it also includes not being afraid to have a frank discussion about the flaws in someone's political record and/or platform.

I don’t disagree with his policies. I want them. I just personally think Sanders is an egotistical, petulant, entitled manbaby who never takes responsibility for anything. Just because I don’t like him doesn’t make me a Third Way/DLC/Moderate Centrist hack. Like.... the only candidate I am resisting as much as Sanders is Biden so my view on him has nothing to do with what you think it does.

What gave you that impression?!? Especially relative to most politicians?

Also, who cares about his personality if he is the most effective and has the best policies?

He stayed in a race where he had already been mathematically defeated, he refused to release his tax returns or last FEC filings, he deflected and gaslit the public on why he voted for the Crime Bill, his interview in April 2016 with the Daily News where he showed his extreme ignorance on some of his most prominent policy proposals, him lashing out every time someone brought up the university his wife bankrupted, and a litany of other things including his belief that most drug dealers are black, that he understood why certain voters felt “uncomfortable” voting for black Abrams and Gillum, and how we need to stop focusing so intensely on black issues, gay Rights and immigration so that we can focus on stuff that affects “ordinary Americans”

Medicare for All and $15 minimum wage are mainstream Democratic policy at this point. We don’t need Bernie Sanders for that.

Agree, but the handful of Democrats that, other than Sanders, have the best chance of winning, are all suspect on the key issues I mentioned.

I would love if an Elizabeth Warren or Jeff merkley or Barbara Lee or some other random competent person with good policies became a viable candidate, but that seems unlikely at this point, Warren made such a dumb mistake with the DNA test.   

Seems like it'll be Beto, Biden, Harris, Sanders as the top competitors (with Harris as probably the best of the 3 non Sanders folks) and despite the real (if exaggerated) blind spots that you mentioned he's clearly the best for America in my eyes (has the best combination of most trustworthy record, source of support, political clout, and policy platform).

[RaphaelDLG]

Agree, but the handful of Democrats that, other than Sanders, have the best chance of winning, are all suspect on the key issues I mentioned.

Maybe because, you know, they believe these policies are ill-advised.
Vermont and California, perhaps the two most liberal states in the union, tried to implement single payer and failed.
Most progressive economists think that a 15$ minimum wage would be disastrous for poorer states where the cost of living is much lower.

Agree on $15, strongly disagree on UHC.  It failed because of a lack of political will and scare tactics, though I wouldn't implement it on the level of government that doesn't have control over monetary policy.  It's worked in a ton of developed countries and our healthcare system has failed for everyone that isn't upper middle class or higher.

[RaphaelDLG]

Agree, but the handful of Democrats that, other than Sanders, have the best chance of winning, are all suspect on the key issues I mentioned.

Maybe because, you know, they believe these policies are ill-advised.
Vermont and California, perhaps the two most liberal states in the union, tried to implement single payer and failed.
Most progressive economists think that a 15$ minimum wage would be disastrous for poorer states where the cost of living is much lower.

Agree on $15, strongly disagree on UHC.  It failed because of a lack of political will and scare tactics, though I wouldn't implement it on the level of government that doesn't have control over monetary policy.  It's worked in a ton of developed countries and our healthcare system has failed for everyone that isn't upper middle class or higher.

The political will vanished when they realized how much they should raise taxes on the middle class to fund the system.

Which is the result of bad salesmanship/effective tactics, because the system is clearly better, as people are starting to realize as our free market fundamentalist culture starts to change for the better