Nonpartisan study: Sanders plan will raise $15.3 Trillion in new taxes

[Bull Moose Base]

http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=2000639

Well, at least we know his tax plan will pay for at least most of his $18 Trillion spending plan.

But I don't see that passing in Congress anytime soon.

It won't, and that's the problem with Sanders. He is promising the world to people knowing full well it won't get passed without a truly massive Democratic wave. He will need a Senate supermajority and House majority for this stuff - Padded majorities so a few Democratic dissenters can't scuttle the entire legislation.

Democrats would need to gain 14 seats (plus the 2 caucusing independents) to hold a bare 60-member US Senate supermajority, let alone extra seats for the padding. The last time a party gained that many seats in 1 election was 1958, and that was because of a major recession. Even landslides during the Great Depression didn't produce 14+ seat Senate gains in one election. Things are far too polarized right now to even come close to allowing such a sweep..

While his intentions are pure, he is being incredible naive and misleading the public.

Neither he nor Hillary will pass anything with this House. At least he acknowledges he'd need a Democratic wave.

[Bull Moose Base]

Neither he nor Hillary will pass anything with this House. At least he acknowledges he'd need a Democratic wave.

No, see. This is the thing - He really doesn't seem to widely acknowledge he needs a wave. He instead talks about a 'revolution' where supposedly millions of people come to the capitol en masse and harass politicians 24/7, which is an absurd notion because 1) that won't happen, and if it had any potential, we'd be seeing the seeds of those protests right now, and 2) Why would Republicans cave to these people when they most likely would come from liberal states/Democratic districts? US House Republicans in safe, gerrymandered districts can ignore them entirely with no consequences. Same for say, a US Senator from a state like Alabama.

If Sanders truly acknowledged the need for a wave - He'd be raising enormous money for downticket races. He's raised what, zero dollars so far? I'm not aware of him raising any money, and if he has recently, it probably isn't much at all given the state of his campaign.

Don't get me wrong, he is a good man, but he's being so stupid and naive, and a lot of young people are going to feel incredibly let down (probably worse than under Obama) if he were to be elected and not deliver on basically anything. Having 2 Democratic presidents in a row promise them the world and lots of change, then fail to deliver, could seriously turn these young people off to politics for years, given how dire some of their situations are.

"Political revolution" is admittedly a vague term but it seems like you're taking some liberty with the way Sanders thinks the mechanics of it would work. I don't assume he thinks Republican congressman would feel any pressure from people out of their district. If memory serves, he blamed Obama for failing to harness the energy behind his presidential campaign into driving up midterm turnout. Which to me suggests he does view "political revolution" as including (but not limited to) a Democratic wave. Which is the reason why young voters should be more disillusioned in themselves than with Obama. The drop-off of in their turnout (and that of minority voters) in 2010 impeded Obama as much as anything.

What I don't see if Hillary supporters who (correctly) point out that Sanders can't pass his agenda acknowledging that she can't either.

[Bull Moose Base]

Lastly, it's fair to say that this could be a Democratic wave year with Trump on the ticket. Before, I'd say there was a 99% chance the House stayed with Republicans, but now I think the chances are split. IF Democrats rode a wave to take back both chambers, they could, and SHOULD either significantly lower the cloture vote requirement, or get rid of it entirely.

We watched Republicans obstruct anything and everything for 6 years. Enough is enough. I don't think Democrats should put up with that anymore if Republicans intend to carry on their unprecedented level of obstructionism, at the expense of the well-being of this country. If they got rid of the 60-vote requirement, Sanders/Clinton agenda suddenly becomes significantly more viable.

Agreed. Still a longshot to take back the House but Trump or even better a brokered convention makes it within the realm of possibility. I think either party will kill the filibuster if they get full control and a narrow senate majority, and either would kill it for Supreme Court nominees if necessary.