Fact: Sanders has been in the Senate nine years and has sponsored only one bill that pass.

[factfinder_77]

Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2017, 09:39 PM - Edit history (2)

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/11/two-gop-senators-have-new-plan-to-repeal-obamacare-as-clock-ticks.html

Link to tweet

Here’s what the numbers say: During her eight years in the Senate, Hillary Clinton sponsored 10 bills that passed the chamber. The mean senator passes 1.4 bills a year, so Clinton’s 1.25 bills per year is approximately in line with the chamber average. By contrast, Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate nine years and has sponsored only one bill that pass

Of course, Sanders is not formally a member of the Democratic Party even though he caucuses with the Democrats in Congress. This may have created some tension with the Democratic leadership and cost him opportunities to pass bills.

Another way members of Congress can influence legislative outcomes is to amend a bill someone else has sponsored, particularly in the Senate. The rules in the Senate allow for much more and freer amending activity than in the House, so senators introduce (and pass) many more amendments than House members do.

Clinton successfully amended bills 67 times in her eight years in the Senate. Sanders did so 57 times in nine years. On a year-by-year basis, that comes to 8.4 per year for Clinton and 6.3 per year for Sanders. Moreover, the mean senator passed 7.4 amendments. Clinton’s is significantly higher than the mean, and Sanders’s is significantly below the mean. Put differently, Clinton passed 33 percent more amendments per year than did Sanders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.790f92bd5453

Edit my post to point out the following:

why is this op important...because Sanders singel payer bill has no specifics on how to pay for it. whose taxes go up? by how much?

And now GOP sees fresh opening with Dems' single payer embrace...

Just as I wrote in my op

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029590993

To quote:

"the GOP can frame the funding structure however they want, they can fill the void with their narratives. Already we’re seeing reports on how it would raise taxes by trillions each year. And now all of our presidential candidates are tied to that framework, on a bill that hasn’t even been properly written yet. All for what? Even if somehow this all succeeds and we get to the stage where the bill must be finalized (with actual specifics), it’ll just fall apart. It’s the same problem the right had by getting commitments to vague notions of repeal with no specifics, you’ll never know that you have the votes on anything specific when it comes down to actually legislating.

At worst this severely harms our chances in 2020.

At best we win in 2020 but then spend all our capitol trying to get this done only to fall apart when we realize no one actually agreed on how to fund universal health care.

We had a policy wonk and the left flipped their shit. Now we've become the Bernie party, the party of vague ideas but no idea on how to legislate. We now have two stupid parties in american politics.

According to Bernie (in the WaPo) Americans dont mind paying more taxes....
All the repubs hsve to do in 2018 and 2020 to win= connect the Dem party to Bernie and then show people how much their taxes would go up.
Bernie just handed trump his victory in 2020. "


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/350935-gop-sees-fresh-opening-with-dems-single-payer-embrace

"We’re absolutely ecstatic that the Democratic party is embracing single payer, and I think there’s a stark contrast developing at a time when the Republican party is focusing on cutting taxes, the Democratic party is focused on adding trillions of dollars of spending and advocating for socialized medicine,” said Corry Bliss, executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP-approved super PAC.

The CLF, which plans on spending $100 million during the 2018 election cycle to protect Republican seats in the House, plans to spend a portion of that on ads tying Democrats to single payer. That’s twice as much as they spent in 2016. “We have $50 million dedicated to attacking Nancy Pelosi. We’re just working through what portion of that can we use to explaining how harmful single payer will be to the American people,” Bliss said.

[JCanete]

1. fact, democratic socialism not popular in a capitalistic system where the government is heavily

influenced by lobbyists. Tell me something I don't know.

[boston bean]

2. Are you saying that democrats in the senate are corrupted by lobbyists?

[JCanete]

87. no, I'm saying our system is, and it bears repeating, just because a person's beliefs might be

genuine, even when they coincide with something that very influential industries/people are in favor of, or at least what those industries prefer over alternatives, doesn't mean that the influence of that money has no impact on who rises to the top, affecting as a result, what philosophy holds power in Washington. People don't have to be corrupt to benefit from the broken system, they just have to be favorable to those powers in a position to king-make.

[Cary]

143. The way to make the system work is to vote

If we vote it doesn't matter how much money is thrown at Democrats.

The only real solution is 100% publicly funded elections. The only way to get that would be overwhelming public support. And I bet dollars to donuts that even if we somehow managed to get 100% public funding, the radical left would still complain and agitate.

[JCanete]

168. on an individual level that works fine. If you are one of the lucky or crazy ones who has put time

into following politics and you know whats going on and what's up you can make a relatively informed decision. For the rest of the public, money is spent to inform them either accurately or inaccurately on the candidates, and they end up basing their decisions on the narrative or opposing narratives that money has bought.

There's no such thing as utopia, so damn straight I hope there are always people agitating for something better.

[Cary]

171. You are one voice out of about 110 million

That's how much say you get. No more, no less.

"Better" isn't up to you, or any single person. We have to be part of the winning coalition to have our say. That requires compromise and humility and respect and discipline.

[JCanete]

173. Yes, I know very much how much I count into the whole equation. If you think rich people

count only as much as I do though, you are sorely mistaken.

[Cary]

174. That wasn't my point

Do you want to affect change, or do you want to.chase windmills?

You can do one or.the other. You can't do both. This is a fact of life, always and everywhere. That's true because it's true, not because I say it's true.

[ImpeachTheGOP]

163. Are you saying they're not?

Because that would be incredibly naïve.

[onit2day]

47. Fact: Sanders worked behind the scenes getting bills

passed without taking credit...getting it done and letting others take the credit according to multiple senators, republican and democratic.
Another attack Bernie post by twisted minds.

[questionseverything]

51. yep the attacks never seem to end

lord forbid the democratic party stood for healthcare being a human right....

because according to this op the repubs wouldn't like that

<rolls eyes>

[Ninsianna]

113. Indeed, why are so many people busy attacking the Democratic party anyway?

It's like they have no freaking clue what the party has stood for on the healthcare front, in their platform, their advocacy and their actions for decades.

The republicans don't like that, it's why they attack the Democratic party, it's really weird that the party is being attacked FOR fighting for universal healthcare by external forces, and those external forces are joined by some rather clueless people who are attacking the party for supposedly being against it, against pretty much all evidence to the contrary.

Nonsensical attacks, both insane and both literally averse to understanding what the party stands for, with the "christian right wing" in the GOP and the "purists" who both prefer to ignore then fact that the Democratic position was always moral and purist on this issue.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. That is a fact? Can you provide sources?

[honey bucket]

61. sanders senate voted

Sanders has a poor history in his Senate votes.
NO on
Amber Alert
Gun Control-5 No votes
Immigration Bill
Russian Sanctions 2 NO votes
Raped Women's health care
etc etc etc.

He and his wife are also profiting from her being on a Nuclear Commission in Texas
This commission ignored Latino resident pleas to not locate Nuclear in their neighborhood
but this commission just ignored the people who live there.

And there are lots more No votes that are really the votes of a man who doesn't know how to compromise
and work well with others.

His health care bill is the one we didn't like because it would tax most one hell of a lot more and a bill that Sanders
still can't explain how he'll pay for.
This is why Sanders (a man who took many millions in foreign donations), lost and would lose again.
We just don't like him or his crooked wife.

[SammyWinstonJack]

71. ...

[lunamagica]

93. Sanders co-sponsored the bill to dump the nuclear waste on Sierra Blanca

And he fought vigorously to pass it.

I didn't know about the Amber Alert...wow, just wow.

[CherokeeFiddle]

138. The GOP piggybacked legislation onto the bill

and this is why Bernie voted no. Be aware that Dems cried foul when Republicans did this and Lehay was specifically vocal on it.

The same day, Leahy issued a 33-page statement denouncing the Republican-led House for tacking provisions onto the bill that he feared would be ruled unconstitutional.

"After months and months of trying, we've finally gotten a green light for a national Amber Alert program," Leahy said in his April 10, 2003, statement. "The problem has never been winning enough support to pass it. The problem has been that our bill has garnered such strong support that it has been abused as a sweetener for highly controversial add-ons."

Among the add-ons placed on the bill by House Republicans was one restricting the discretion of federal judges in crafting sentences for a range of crimes.
http://archive.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/09/21/sanders_vote_on_amber_alert_emerges_as_key_campaign_issue/

[lunamagica]

147. Again, purity tests. No bill is perfect, compromises are made. If only "perfect" bills

should be approved, nothing would ever get done.

The Amber Alert became law. It has saved lives. Would it really be worth it if those children who have been saved by the Amber Alert had been murdered because Republicans piggybacked legislation onto it?

As I said, the Amber Alert has saved many children from being murdered...can you tell me what has been the harm brought by it?

[womanofthehills]

94. Your post is misleading - There was added GOP legistation piggybacked onto some of these bills

As far as the Amber Alert he felt it should be left to the judiciary as the bill would take powers away from the judiciary.

[lunamagica]

109. Oh. that "purity" thing again...bill must be perfect... no room for compromise

Since when does legislation work like that?

The Amber Alert bill passed. Was that a bad thing? What damage has it caused?

[JCanete]

136. sometimes people are actually wrong. I'm sure that Sanders is wrong sometimes, or even if not

"wrong" per say, certainly at odds with my own perspective. I have no idea why he voted no on the amber alert thing but that is highly unlikely to have anything to do with lobbyist ties or anything other than his actual opinion on the bill. Maybe he had good justifications, ultimately wrong or right, for not voting on that, but I'm not interested in looking them up, because again, there's no good cynical spin for why somebody might vote the way he did(or at least I can't think of any).

As to purity...its more of the same BS. A bill does not have to be pure, nor does a candidate, or did you forget that Sanders endorsed Clinton who supposedly failed that purity test, and promoted the ACA and voted for it, etc. The "purity" bs has no bearing on fact. The question to be asked isn't whether a bill is perfect, but whether the sum of its parts is worse or better for people, or whether there is any good justification for the harmful part.

[lunamagica]

175. And what's the annswer on the Amber Alert bill?

View profile
"wrong" per say, certainly at odds with my own perspective. I have no idea why he voted no on the amber alert thing but that is highly unlikely to have anything to do with lobbyist ties or anything other than his actual opinion on the bill. Maybe he had good justifications, ultimately wrong or right, for not voting on that, but I'm not interested in looking them up, because again, there's no good cynical spin for why somebody might vote the way he did(or at least I can't think of any).

As to purity...its more of the same BS. A bill does not have to be pure, nor does a candidate, or did you forget that Sanders endorsed Clinton who supposedly failed that purity test, and promoted the ACA and voted for it, etc. The "purity" bs has no bearing on fact. The question to be asked isn't whether a bill is perfect, but whether the sum of its parts is worse or better for people, or whether there is any good justification for the harmful part.


And what is the answer to this question regarding the Amber Alert?

[NurseJackie]

104. Interesting.

[CherokeeFiddle]

137. And every single one of those has an explination

But for some reason you only want to see things at face value, I wonder why.

How exactly are the Sanders benefiting from Jane being on a nuclear commission in TX? I'll give you one guess who signed that bill into law. Of course you're also forgetting that there was support from the community itself over this https://www.c-span.org/congress/bills/billAction/?print/1410681

Bernie doesn't know how to work well with others? You're damn right he doesn't and in my eyes and many others, we don't want to him work well with others, specifically Republicans, either. We want Bernie to be a damn lightning rod and nothing but. "He who knocks" if you will, the guy who has stood fast for ages with the same core beliefs and principles as he has always had, never wavering. This is why he is so popular.

You're worried about taxes? Seriously? Taxes. The taxes are less than what you pay for now health care. This is a RW point of view you have here. There are no co-pays with Medicare For All, perhaps you aren't aware of this. You pay nothing out of pocket. Any current system which exists doesn't even have that. Bernie has fully explained how he'd pay for it. Here are a few highlights of just how he would pay for it;

• Elimination of special tax breaks : $4.2 trillion over 10 years. The main target: company-provided health benefits for employees. They would no longer be needed.

• Business payroll tax : $3.9 trillion over 10 years. Companies would pay a 7.5% income-based fee, but Sanders asserts it would cost them less overall compared to the current system.

• Household premiums : $3.4 trillion over 10 years. Families would pay a 4% income-based fee, considerably less than what they pay now.

• Higher taxes on the rich : $1.8 trillion over 10 years. Raise marginal rates to as high as 52% on the richest Americans. The current top rate is about 39.6%. Also, limit deductions and treat taxes on dividends and capital gains equally.

• A new net wealth tax : $1.3 trillion over 10 years. This new tax would apply to the wealthiest 0.1%, or 160,000 households. A 1% annual tax would be applied to net worth exceeding $21 million.

• One-time tax on offshore profits : $767 billion over 10 years. Sanders wants to tax profits of Americans companies that are earned and held in other countries. These profits are not taxed until they are returned home under current U.S. law.

• Increased estate taxes: $249 billion over 10 years.

• Fee on large Wall Street banks : $117 billion over 10 years. The six largest U..S. financial institutions would get the bill.

We'll disagree on if Bernie would lose again. "We don't like him", is who exactly? The 8% who see him negatively? You are very much a minority. He's the most popular politician in office today. Sorry you dislike the guy who fights like hell for the everyday average Joe along with the poor. Hopefully you'll see the error of your ways

[George II]

68. Namely?

[George II]

75. Are you really saying fellow DUers have "twisted minds"?

[Cary]

144. "Twisted minds"

Is that kind of thing helpful?

[George II]

67. What does that have to do with the OP?

[JCanete]

79. what is the op's point? nt

[ucrdem]

3. Barack was another overachiever whose considerable accomplishments were trashed here daily,

often in deeply hostile and offensive terms. As were Hillary's. Yet there's no special exception in the DU rules shielding either of them from anything. There is only one such exception.

Go figure.

[R B Garr]

8. ++++++++Yes to everything you said. nt

[Ken Burch]

18. Nobody's shielding Bernie. It's fine to criticize the guy or say he shouldn't run again.

It's just that there's no reason to be treating him as an opponent.

And there's no reason to keep the Bernie v. Hillary dynamic going anymore-there's room for both of them and there's room for all their supporters. We can't win without all their supporters.

[Demsrule86]

24. If we lose the ACA I will blame the single payer bill partly and it will be very difficult to

forgive this...it should never have been put out now...a couple of weeks fine...but not now.

[Eliot Rosewater]

53. Not to mention if we dont win seats in 2018 because of a litmus test

etc, or "give me a reason to vote for x, y or z" then boy, do we have a problem

[Demsrule86]

86. Very true...Eliiot.

[Beartracks]

156. To those people: Sometimes voting AGAINST the Republican IS a perfectly fine reason. n/t

[Eliot Rosewater]

157. It all comes down to how the 2 party system works, MANY are still unclear

[NurseJackie]

161. It's a DISTRACTION for lawmakers and a DISTRACTION for the public who...

... should be focusing on the multiple threats to the ACA. The public should be ANGRY and CALLING their political representatives.

But, instead, they're ooh-ing and aah-ing at the bright shiny object that HAS NO CHANCE OF PASSING within the next 20-30 years.

Meanwhile, the distracted public applies NO pressure to lawmakers who effortlessly disassemble the ACA's components until it collapses.

This bullshit go-nowhere MFA bill IS A DISTRACTION and it's a THREAT to the ACA.

MFA will never pass without a strong and robust ACA. If the ACA fails or collapses, the GOP will use its failure as a reason to oppose MFA.

The timing of the MFA bill was wrong-headed. In my opinion it's grandstanding when EVERYONE knows it stands no chance of being passed or even voted on. It's not even useful as a bargaining chip.

[George II]

78. The classic was Obama being called "a second rate used car salesman" (maybe not exact words)....

....and Hillary Clinton a "corporate Wall Street", a phrase picked up by Dr. Song months later.

[Demsrule86]

89. I remember that...I lurked then and the guy that did it is some sort of writer...awful.

[Cary]

146. Awful.

[haveahart]

101. That!

[Cary]

145. I often wonder what that's about

Either these are self-loathing liberals, or right wingers sowing discord and discontent.

[Agschmid]

4. She isn't running for anything; and at this point isn't even in government.

He is still in government and he is working for good causes... just as she did.

Cut the shit, stop tying to divide.

[ucrdem]

5. Defeating the TPP was not a good cause.

It was embraced by the RW and Trump took the hint and now we're out of the loop. Not good at all.

[R B Garr]

7. Thanks for pointing out that bandwagon topics aren't always accurately

portrayed. Demonizing Democrats hasn't worked out and is very divisive.

[lapucelle]

108. That's a great point.

It's been happening with the term "single payer" all week. Many confuse it with "universal coverage" which has been a Democratic party core value since 1993.

[R B Garr]

121. Yes, I always thought that the TPP was used as a backdoor way to attack

Bill Clinton over NAFTA, but no one really called him out or said anything about asking him to justify his remarks. And I have noticed that about universal coverage, as well. Another poster had a link to Bill Clinton's universal coverage from 1993 I believe, and it certainly is a core Democratic value. Very progressive for the time. Ironically, I've been seeing those CNN reruns about the '90's and they are almost exclusively about Clinton's presidency and the fight for health care. Very, very progressive for that time period.

[lapucelle]

124. Democrats needed every vote they could get in Congress back in 1993

if they were to get a health care bill passed.

They wooed and courted everyone in the House. Unfortunately, not all congressmen were on board.

[Ken Burch]

16. It was embraced by Trump only after we didn't embrace it.

Opposition to the TPP was the only position you could take and be on the side of working people-and there was no difference in attitude on TPP between workers of different races-the working class, as a class, was against it.

If we'd simply put our nominee's primary position on that into the platform and the ads, we would never have lost the Upper Midwest.

That's just reality.

[ucrdem]

49. Opposing fair trade is reactionary and there was nothing remotely progressive about it.

And yes there is a direct link to today's events, in that the MFA bill is timed to deliver a coup de grace to the ACA in the last days of the GOP window to use reconciliation to repeal it. In other words it uses an ersatz appeal to "progressivism" to assist in the wrecking of a vitally important Democratic initiative.

[Ken Burch]

77. Nobody is opposed to "fair trade"-TPP wasn't fair trade-it was "free trade"

which is always a right wing concept now, because it now means that social benefits and state funding for education can be challenged by corporations as "subsidies".

We never needed to force other countries to cut social spending, educational spending, relax labor law enforcement and loosen environmental regulations just to have access to their markets.

And what's actually reactionary is putting "containing China" ahead of defending working people.

[ucrdem]

84. It was never a "free trade" agreement. It was a 12-nation regulatory framework

for the protection of intellectual property, services and investments, labor rights, and the environment. Its title was "Transpacific Partnership." Its purpose was to create export markets for US goods and services while safeguarding the worker rights and environment of partner nations. You really ought to familiarize yourself with what it was and forget what RWNJs like Julian Assange pretended it was. Unfortunately the original TPP links are no longer functional but there's a lot of material in my own DU links which are collected here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6793235

Or the short link in my signature: http://goo.gl/SibdqS

[haveahart]

102. Only people who read the agreement would know that...just sayin'

[Ken Burch]

21. Thank you.

n/t.

[Demsrule86]

26. It is not a good cause if we lose the ACA...because we have a snowball's change in hell

of getting single payer anytime soon...and without the ACA millions will die.

[DeeDeeNY]

50. Yes

Exactly.

[SammyWinstonJack]

72. +1.

[lunamagica]

98. Voting no on the Amber Alert, no on gun control, no on immigration reform, co-sponsor on a bill to

dump nuclear wast on the poorest community...were those good causes?

[Agschmid]

110. Nobody is perfect, and for the most part those a talking points of Bernie haters.

He's not perfect, never will be. I don't pretend he, or really any politician is, sorry.

[kacekwl]

6. What is your point ?

More B.S.

[factfinder_77]

11. Sanders has little experience in creating legislation that will pass.

His singel payer bill has no specifics on how to pay for it. whose taxes go up? by how much?

And now GOP sees fresh opening with Dems' single payer embrace...

Just as I wrote in my op

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029590993

To quote:

"ow the GOP can frame the funding structure however they want, they can fill the void with their narratives. Already we’re seeing reports on how it would raise taxes by trillions each year. And now all of our presidential candidates are tied to that framework, on a bill that hasn’t even been properly written yet. All for what? Even if somehow this all succeeds and we get to the stage where the bill must be finalized (with actual specifics), it’ll just fall apart. It’s the same problem the right had by getting commitments to vague notions of repeal with no specifics, you’ll never know that you have the votes on anything specific when it comes down to actually legislating.

At worst this severely harms our chances in 2020.

At best we win in 2020 but then spend all our capitol trying to get this done only to fall apart when we realize no one actually agreed on how to fund universal health care.

We had a policy wonk and the left flipped their shit. Now we've become the Bernie party, the party of vague ideas but no idea on how to legislate. We now have two stupid parties in american politics.

According to Bernie (in the WaPo) Americans dont mind paying more taxes....
All the repubs hsve to do in 2018 and 2020 to win= connect the Dem party to Bernie and then show people how much their taxes would go up.
Bernie just handed trump his victory in 2020. "


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/350935-gop-sees-fresh-opening-with-dems-single-payer-embrace

"We’re absolutely ecstatic that the Democratic party is embracing single payer, and I think there’s a stark contrast developing at a time when the Republican party is focusing on cutting taxes, the Democratic party is focused on adding trillions of dollars of spending and advocating for socialized medicine,” said Corry Bliss, executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP-approved super PAC.

The CLF, which plans on spending $100 million during the 2018 election cycle to protect Republican seats in the House, plans to spend a portion of that on ads tying Democrats to single payer. That’s twice as much as they spent in 2016. “We have $50 million dedicated to attacking Nancy Pelosi. We’re just working through what portion of that can we use to explaining how harmful single payer will be to the American people,” Bliss said.

[Ken Burch]

23. OK...so find new wonks to flesh out the dreams.

The Sanders/Clinton fight is the past, for God's sakes.

[R B Garr]

25. Nice try, but this isn't about Clinton and she wasn't mentioned.

It's about what the OP stated very clearly.

[Ken Burch]

35. The OP and follow-up posts by the OP were a Sanders/Clinton comparison

Why should we be comparing the two anymore at all?

What difference does it make whether Hillary got stuff she sponsored passed?

Why pit Hillary against Bernie at all anymore?

They both have a right to be here and this party can only lose ground by telling either of them to go to hell.

[R B Garr]

42. When you read the whole OP, it's about his legislative record and how his

bill will be defined by the GOP because of lack of specifics about funding. That is a serious flaw and consideration. This is just one of many articles about it available.

[Ken Burch]

44. Then there was no reason to reference HRC's legislative record

(In a Republican Congress, no Democrats got any important bills they sponsored passed-I don't think even Teddy managed to do so).

OK?

[R B Garr]

92. HRC is a good Democrat, so it certainly isn't a bad thing to reference her

legislative record on Democratic Underground. That's quite an odd thing to go off on just because Bernie sponsored a bill and someone is pointing out his record. Other Democrats are going to be mentioned, and they all should feel welcome. We need to make sure all good Democrats are welcomed and their supporters made to feel accepted and happy.

[Ken Burch]

134. My point is, we need to get out of the Hillary v. Bernie thing.

They both have a legitimate place, they both have things to say and we need to get their supporters united for the future. There's no reason to pit them against each other anymore.

Can't we just move past that.

[R B Garr]

141. You should take you own advice about the so-called "Hillary v. Bernie thing."

You should take your own advice and "move past that."

Your main concern is obviously about Bernie, so you should take your own advice. Hillary has a book out now that you continue to misrepresent as refighting the primaries whenever someone posts about it. She is a great Democrat and is still wildly popular as seen by the lines for her book and cable ratings from the Rachel Maddow show for her appearance.


Ironically, this is what you said in another thread:

"And posts defending Bernie's presence in the 2016 race, or against what a poster sees as unfair attack, or for that matter posts simply arguing that ideas associated with his campaign(none of which originated there, btw) should not automatically be equated with "refighting the primary"."

edit: Here was my takeaway from this OP, nothing to do with Hillary:

"the GOP can frame the funding structure however they want, they can fill the void with their narratives. Already we’re seeing reports on how it would raise taxes by trillions each year.

[Ken Burch]

150. My main concern is NOT about Bernie.

If if was, I wouldn't have repeatedly said that he shouldn't run for president again.

My actual main concern is about not wanting the party to alienate active Sanders supporters, to avoid driving them away from politics and dismissing what they care about.

We need them, and we need their ideas, ALONG WITH THE IDEAS OF OTHERS IN THE PARTY, to win.

As a party, we WILL drive them away forever, we WILL convince them that political involvement is bogus(particularly the youngest among them, the people we MOST need to have in our tent of any of them and the ones we are most likely to lose)if the party does what some want and anathemizes not only Bernie as an individual-but any and all ideas with any connection to his campaign.

We can't ever win another election if we do what some here want and say that all Sanders-related ideas are off limits(which would leave us with only moderate conservative policies on economics, btw, since it would mean we would even be renouncing anything connected to Keynseniasm and leave us with a tie to corporate power that no progressive party should ever have), hide any progressive ideas in our platform and refuse to defend progressive or liberal ideas when they are under right-wing attack, make ourselves look as conservative as possible in the fall campaigns, and then double down on loudly demanding that people who were more progressive than we were or than we were trying to look vote for us simply because the other side is horrible-in other words, make every future campaign a "stop the villain" campaign.

That's the approach that was used against Reagan in California in 1966 and 1970. Failed badly both times.

That's the approach that was used against Reagan nationally in 1980 and 1984. Failed badly both times.

That's the approach that was used against Bush the First in 1988. Failed badly.

1992 and 1996, we won on the candidate's personal charisma, an actual fight-back against right-wing attackers(the rapid-response team), and, in 1992, a pledge for universal healthcare.

The approach listed above was what failed(at least in the Electoral College) in 2000.

It failed in 2004.

It failed in 2016.

Nothing against the candidates themselves in saying that, they were great people. It's the strategy I'm talking about.

I want us to stop Trump and stop everything he wants done.

But why stay with what has failed for fifty years?

Whoever we nominate(and it will be someone from a younger generation in 2020), why not try something else, given that what we've been doing, other than the variations in the routine Obama brought in, generally isn't helping us?




I support Hillary's right to speak...there was only one small section of her book about whith I raised respectful concerns. I don't support the people protesting
her book signings or anything like that.

And no, my main

[R B Garr]

155. Your entire post here is about supporting Bernie, his supporters, his campaign

and the talking points that lost by millions of votes in 2016. I also saw your ATA post that was worded in definite support of Bernie and was obviously worded in a way to imply Bernie was victimized, "lashing out at Bernie" and other such accusations. Your continued implications and insistence that Bernie is being victimized is divisive. You claim to be about unity, but your posts are worded otherwise.

You should take your own advice and quit making this a Hillary v. Bernie thing. Hillary is a good Democrat, and it's okay that people support her and her recent book.

[Ken Burch]

159. We can't ask his supporters to vote for our ticket if we anathemize all their ideas

associated with his campaign, and only run on the ideas we'd have had in the platform had his campaign never happened.
What we'd have had without that were mildly progressive things that didn't ask anything of the wealthy-they and were and are worth being part of what we need to be about in the future, but they were never going to be enough to elect us by themselves. Therefore, we can't win solely on those ideas.

The only way forward is to treat the ideas of both campaigns as being of equal esteem and equal legitimacy within the party. The ideas are separate from the persons and there's no reason to feel any actual hostility to the ideas themselves.

Hillary, in her anti-Sanders passage in the book, admitted that the ideas themselves were valid and should be part of what we are about.

We can't win if we make this a party where the ideas of the 2016 Clinton campaign are legitimate and the ideas of the Sanders campaign(ideas that seem to be supported by most Dems now, at least on economics)are not.

What is so terrible about the actual ideas? A lot of people who preferred Hillary actually supported the economic ideas.

And it's absurd to argue that post-1981 capitalism is more anti-oppression than social democracy. Post-1981 capitalism, after what Reagan did to it in removing all humane values from it, can't defend reproductive choice or fight racism, sexism and anti-LGBTQ prejudice. The only things that can fight that are outside the realm of private profit.

[R B Garr]

160. More diversions. There were many of "their ideas" added to Clinton's platform.

C'mon now.

You aren't advocating "equal esteem" and "equal legitimacy". This just looks like a way to keep fighting over a campaign that lost by 3 Million votes. These are all emotional arguments you are making and not based on what actually transpired. There is no "both campaigns" anymore. The second place candidate does not advance.

[Ken Burch]

165. No it isn't. And the addition of those policies to our platform is my starting point.

It proves the defeat of the candidate isn't the rejection of the ideas.

The ideas are separate from the candidate and the ideas advance.

I don't have to treat the ideas as rejected to accept the nomination of HRC-and continuing the ideas isn't an insult to her or her supporters.

[R B Garr]

166. It just comes across as pointless divisiveness to continue

rejecting reality to push a false "equal integrity" mantra, which implies that people are being treated unfairly. There are no "both campaigns" anymore because the person who placed second didn't advance. Hillary bent over backwards to work together with Sanders in implementing some of his ideas. Lots of politicians do that. But if those "ideas" mean constant undermining of Democrats, then it's okay to reject them if they don't help get Democrats get elected. Democrats should be made to feel welcome in the party, too, and feel that their majority is being respected and appreciated and listened to.

[Ken Burch]

167. Most Democrats agree with Bernie's economic ideas.

It doesn't undermine Democrats for us to recognize that social democracy is party of our future.

The only way we can defeat sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, lslamophobia and any other related phobias is to return to the levels of job security and economic stability that we had in the mid-Sixties.

A society in which even the hardest-working people go to be every night knowing they could be put out of work at any time and have to travel the country simply to find some way to survive on a day-to-day basis can't be a society free of prejudice and hatred. It can't be a society in which backlash is stopped.

We obviously need to center the fight against bigotry, and nobody in this side of the spectrum is saying or even thinking not to.

Rather than sniping at people like me, why not offer suggestions as to how to adjust social democratic ideas to make sure no one is excluded or privileged by identity? That's something we can work together to achieve. And most of us on the Left at supportive of reparations-I always have been personally-so let's bring that in, too.

[R B Garr]

169. This isn't even reality, though. If you go by election results, most Democrats

supported Hillary Clinton in overwhelming majorities against both male opponents. That is reality.

The rest is a lot of tangential thinking, but I like how you tie it all in together that I am sniping at you. The duplicity is fascinating on many levels.

Oh, and I'm sure that some people who have very good jobs and economic stability are still racists, like Trump for instance.

[Ken Burch]

170. Obviously some people with good jobs and economic stability still act in racist ways.

Nobody disputes that. Nor does anyone on our side of the spectrum minimize racism as an issue.

It's just that full-employment societies are going to be less bigoted than societies where people are economically uncertain. Saying that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against bigotry no matter what.

We're all united on the need to center the fight against bigotry.

And I fully agree that HRC won the nomination. The contest between HRC and Bernie as individuals and candidates is permanently over.

We are all past that.

What we're talking about is the future.

A fight against social injustice and a fight against economic injustice BOTH need to be part of that future.

That's all I'm saying.

[R B Garr]

172. A lot of words, but no real point. I guess that brings us back to the start of the thread,

which is about legislative accomplishments. You have to actually get elected to get your agendas enacted, so let's quit tearing Democrats down since that serves no purpose.

[Ms. Toad]

119. Reading comprehension is a good thing.

Here's what the opstated very clearly, in the OP's own words:

Clinton successfully amended bills 67 times in her eight years in the Senate. Sanders did so 57 times in nine years. On a year-by-year basis, that comes to 8.4 per year for Clinton and 6.3 per year for Sanders. Moreover, the mean senator passed 7.4 amendments. Clinton’s is significantly higher than the mean, and Sanders’s is significantly below the mean. Put differently, Clinton passed 33 percent more amendments per year than did Sanders.

Clinton was mentioned 4 times, in that paragraph alone, and the OP would have to work hard to make it much more explicit that it is about Clinton v. Sanders than the OP did in this paragrph.

[R B Garr]

120. That's all you got?? What is this thread about?

I read much more of the OP, and I obviously missed an edit. But is this seriously all you comprehended?

[Ms. Toad]

125. You claimed it wasn't about Clinton,

and that Clinton wasn't mentioned and implied the reference to Clinton must have been added later

You didn't miss an edit. The paragraph I quoted was one of 4 original paragraphs in the OP, the first of which also mentioned Clinton. twice. It is very clear that the OP explicitly started this thread to continue the primary fight and/or bash Sanders.

I'm tired of every other thread being started by people who can't let go of the primary, and have to start daily threads blaming Trump on Sanders. I'm tired of these threads being pumped up by people who deny the express langauge of the OPs, and of juries who can't read the TOS to see that Sanders is to be treated as a Democrat here. Continuing the primary battle is against the TOS. Bashing Bernie is against the TOS. The primary (not to mention the general election) is over.

We have better things to do - like getting all hands on deck to ensure that Republicans don't repeal the ACA in the next 14 days.

[R B Garr]

128. You are making this more about Clinton than the OP. The OP is about legislative

records. It's not about the primaries. I also typed way more than what you are focusing on, but I've seen this before where it becomes about some nit that can be picked instead of the overall message of the thread.

I see you talk a lot about what bothers you and that is very beneficial for you. Unfortunately, I can't do that, but there is no reason for people to have to stifle themselves about the record of a United States Senator.

[mythology]

133. Regardless of what you are invested in believing

you are simply wrong. If this wasn't about comparing Sanders to Clinton, then all the OP had to do was mention the median Senator. The OP decided to do differently. It's patently absurd to claim this isn't about comparing to two.

[Demsrule86]

27. It makes no difference it won't pass without a super majority and how often have we had those? It

could be decades.

[Ken Burch]

37. So Teddy Kennedy should never have introduced any of his healthcare bills?

There was never a supermajority to pass them in his entire Congressional career.

[Demsrule86]

115. I go to church with a girl who worked for Ted Kennedy in his later years...

His biggest regret is he felt during the Carter years, they missed a chance for healthcare...she told me this...had discussed it with him. Ted Kennedy worked hard his entire life to get healthcare... he would never have introduced a single payer bill at this time when it is critical to save the ACA...and if we don't save it...there will be no health care and in this situation,we also lose Medicaid. It was a terrible idea and I hope...millions don't lose any health care and die because of it. There is no doubt in my mind had we fought for the ACA instead of having a single payer bill, we would have a better chance.

[zentrum]

9. Therefore no single payer for us!

Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2017, 07:57 PM - Edit history (1)

The heck with MFA. Go pound sand Warren, Ellison, Booker and Franken! Why? Because Bernie is fighting like hell for this.

And if it doesn't pass this time---forget it! Go passive!

Being sarcasitic BTW.

[Demsrule86]

28. If the ACA fails, we have lost any chance at single payer. You have to fight smart in a way that

can work. Otherwise what is the point?

[Ken Burch]

38. Fighting smart doesn't mean not talking about anything at all other than keeping the ACA

in its current form.

It's enough that that's the short-term thing.

Everyone backing MFA is working to save the ACA in the short-term.

[Demsrule86]

54. Right now it is the only thing... single payer was introduced the same time that Graham's bill was

introduced. Already, it begins-the GOP attacks...this may cost us the ACA and the coming elections ...so foolish...where is the fix the ACA bill? If the ACA goes down , there will be hell to pay for not putting out a fix and putting out single payer. at such a critical time...when it had no chance to pass.

[Ken Burch]

74. There should have been an ACA repair bill-but it wasn't Bernie's responsibilityt to introduce it.

It was the responsibility, more than anything else, of those who argued for the ACA approach over single-payer to start with. Single-payer advocates didn't have a greater responsibility for introducing an ACA repair bill than the people who said that the ACA was the best we could get in 2010.

[Demsrule86]

80. You have your opinion,and I have mine...the single payer bill will go nowhere.

But live people depend on the ACA. Personally I doubt I can ever forgive those involved if the ACA fails.

[Ken Burch]

82. And they've proved that they are fighitng for the ACA

It's not the fault of single-payer supporters that an ACA repair bill was never introduced. I agree with you that it should have been.

[Demsrule86]

90. I see no such proof.

[zentrum]

106. Vice Chair of the DNC itself.

“We can fight fiercely to protect the Affordable Care Act and also look a little bit farther in terms of establishing Medicare for All,” Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a high-profile single-payer advocate and vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said at the press conference."

[Demsrule86]

112. I have not seen any fighting...and let me say I disagree...no matter how you cut it...

Introducing another bill says...the ACA isn't good enough, and that will help the GOP kill it. And that was not said about this single payer bill. That was a comment made in may of this year...and honestly has nothing to do with anything. Mark my words...this is a really bad thing.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/334917-dem-lawmakers-call-for-single-player-healthcare

[Demsrule86]

116. You aren't going to get it this time with the government in GOP hands...better to have fought for

the ACA and Medicaid.

[G_j]

10. A conversation once again

comparing Sanders and Clinton.

[mudstump]

12. Go ahead...

keep posting this crap and see just how many progressive seats we win in the future. Why does this poster think that keeping progressives at each other's throat is a good strategy going forward?

[murielm99]

19. I am a Democrat and a liberal.

I don't use the term progressive. The implications of that term have become divisive and are being used as a purity test. I will stick to my tried and true label.

[Demsrule86]

30. The threats don't work any more because we lost the courts, DACA, and now Medicaid/ the ACA

It will take years to rebuild.

[Ken Burch]

39. It's Comey's and Putin's fault that that happened-stop blaming the left.

Nobody knew the EC would break the way it did and it wasn't the left's fault that the party didn't attend to the Upper Midwest until it was too late.

[Demsrule86]

55. That is not true...certainly those you mention were to blame, but there were enough for Hillary

to have won in the Stein votes and it has been clearly demonstrated that the left left helped sway the election in Trumps favor.

[Ken Burch]

73. Bernie campaigned hard for Hillary.

It's not his fault or his campaign's fault that the Stein vote played a role in Upper Midwest.

And it's not his fault or his supporters' fault that the Clinton/Kaine campaign was way too overconfident about carrying them.

The overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters did campaign for and back the ticket.

And while voting Green in presidential elections is a horribly stupid idea, it's not possible to get people not do it next time by denouncing them for doing it last time and then demanding their votes for whoever we nominate next time. That approach never, ever works.

[Demsrule86]

81. Again that is a matter of opinion.

Water under the bridge...but I would expect Sen. Sander and all Democrats to fight tooth and nail to save the ACA...and mark my words without...we don't ever get single payer.

[Ken Burch]

85. And they are, so there's no argument here.

n/t.

[R B Garr]

96. Why do you keep making this about the primaries?? It's about Bernie's legislative

record and how that measures up. It's just not realistic to expect that no Democrats are ever mentioned in comparison to his record. It's okay to speak positively about Democrats. It's fine to be a Democrat and they should be made to feel welcome here.

[Eliot Rosewater]

57. Progressive seats? Do you mean if people keep criticizing Bernie

"progressives" wont vote for Democrats?

[Ken Burch]

13. The primaries are over. It's not Hillary vs. Bernie anymore.

We're past that now.

[R B Garr]

15. LOL. nt

[Ken Burch]

17. What's to laugh at? I don't want Bernie to run again.

No one has to disavow every idea associated with his campaign to prove that.

And I'm nothing but respectful to HRC.

[R B Garr]

20. Because the OP was not about what you said. It's not about the primary.

Using an article about Bernie's legislation record is not about the primary. He just introduced legislation a year and a half after he lost the primary. Just a couple days ago.

[Ken Burch]

29. The linked article is from the primaries.

And the OP is predicated on a Sanders/Clinton comparison, which is not a comparison anyone should still be making.

Neither of them is going to be president, and neither of them is to blame for the other one not being president.

It's time to admit that 2016 is the past.

[R B Garr]

31. No it's not about that. You should take your own advice about 2016.

[Ken Burch]

40. I always do.

None of the ideas I work for are about the past.

[Bradical79]

97. It's refighting the primaries -nt

[R B Garr]

99. Comparing and contrasting Bernie's legislative record is not about

the primaries. It's a current topic. Senator Graham just called out Bernie's new single payer proposal and mentioned Bernie specifically, so it's definitely a current topic. It's okay to reference other Democrats here when looking at Bernie's record. It's bound to happen.

[Bradical79]

103. Yes it is

when you use an article from the primaries comparing two 2016 primary candidates. If the OP wants productive discussion about Sanders legislative background and how it relates to current events, then they shouldn't use such an article.

I'm not sure it's even relevant considering everyone knows no single payer bill or ACA fix will happen anytime soon. It's arguing over two current dead ends.

[R B Garr]

107. Ironically, some other articles about his record might not be permitted here....

I just looked at a couple, and they probably would not be allowed. This one seems to be the most current. At some point, it must be okay to look at a Senator's record without accusations.

Not sure why his record wouldn't be relevant, especially if this single payer is being used at all as a litmus test for other Democrats. People will be looking at the total picture, no doubt.

[pangaia]

43. The OP is an attack (OK - criticism) on Sanders by comparing something he did

with something Clinton - or Sander's record with Clinton's record.Or... (and by the way , a useless comparison)

It's pretty clear what the post is about..

[Demsrule86]

59. It is not an attack to discuss and compare records.

[pangaia]

60. hummmmm

No comment..

[Demsrule86]

58. This is done all the time, and then they alert on it.

[R B Garr]

95. True, I've noticed that the same false accusations fly if the focus

is diverted to good Democrats and their accomplishments. I think I missed an edit here, but the whole of the post was mostly about Bernie's legislative track record. That's a timely discussion since the bills that have come up in the last couple days.

[Demsrule86]

117. Yes....you have to wonder what motivates someone to introduce a bill that basically says the ACA

isn't good enough when that person knows...the evil GOP are trying to get rid of it and if they do ...millions won't have health care and many will die...and for icing on the cake we lose Medicaid. I am really furious about this.

[R B Garr]

123. Agreed. The look on Graham's face was pretty snide and evil and he called

Bernie out like he was purposefully confusing the issues. That's the main point I've gotten from this thread, and it's a good one. The lack of funding specifics allows the GOP to fill in the blanks however they wish, and you know it's going to be a huge slam on Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

32. I am really ticked about single payer being advance instead of a bill fixing the ACA...I really am

It has nothing to do with the election. If we lose the ACA, it is over. I doubt we will see any healthcare in our lifetime.

[Ken Burch]

41. You're right. And it was those who preferred the ACA to single-payer

who had the responsibility to introduce an ACA repair bill.

Why do you keep making it sound like that was up to single-payer people?

[Demsrule86]

63. There it is...'those who preferred the ACA'...this is not a choice between single payer

and the ACA. It is a choice between the ACA and nothing...thus every Democrat and those who caucus with Democrats should have been fighting tooth and nail to save ACA...there shouldn't have been single payer advocates and ACA advocates...single payer is not obtainable and if the ACA goes down, we have lost any chance at universal coverage or any kind of health care for a generation...just like after Clinton. It was a foolish self defeating thing to do ...not secure the ACA before advocating anything else. I personally will never forgive those involved if the ACA goes down...there will be terrible backlash.

[Ken Burch]

70. And they all are fighting to save it.

Everyone backing the MFA is ALSO working to save the ACA.

Not indroducing the MFA bill wouldn't have made any difference.

[Demsrule86]

83. What has been done and by whom?

I know of no such action.

[Ken Burch]

135. Everyone in the Senate Democratic Congress has been part of the continuing battle to save ACA.

Bernie even refused a GOP proposal to include single-payer in one of their bills, because he realized it was a sham offer.

[Demsrule86]

139. Name something specific because I have barely heard the ACA mentioned. I have heard talk only

about single payer.

[Demsrule86]

140. Can you give me a specific example? All I hear is generalities...I have watch politics and read

everything...and have not seen what you describe. I am not doubting you, but what specifically has been done? I would like to know.

[ucrdem]

158. He's currently promoting his own bill with no mention of the ACA:

https://twitter.com/SenSanders

[sheshe2]

65. Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

ByEVAN MCMORRIS-SANTOROPublishedMARCH 10, 2010, 7:26 PM EST

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.

Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation's health care crisis.

Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

Ken Burch
41. You're right. And it was those who preferred the ACA to single-payer

who had the responsibility to introduce an ACA repair bill.

Why do you keep making it sound like that was up to single-payer people?

It had nothing to do with preference...we didn't have the votes. Your statement is divisive, please stop.

[Ken Burch]

14. 1) That's an article FROM THE PRIMARIES, so you're refighting

2) If we are to win in 2018 and 2020, we need the people you are lashing out at. Dems can't get left votes by vilifying politicians the left supports and then demanding left votes anyway.

[Lucky Luciano]

22. Has sanders had more thug majorities than HRC? Honest question.

Sponsoring a bill as the minirity party doesn't get you very far no matter who you are.

[Demsrule86]

34. Nope and this one is particularly bad...in terms of timing.

[lapucelle]

111. No.

Clinton served for 4 years under Republican leadership and for 4 years with a Democratic leader.

Sanders has served under Republican leadership for 4 years and under Democratic leadership for 8 years.

[rockfordfile]

33. Seems like something that a russian/gop would come up with to distract

I have some problems with Sanders from last year and this year. but about who passed how many bills.

[WhiteTara]

131. I think s/he was commenting on how effective

he is. Mostly he does post office names.

[pangaia]

36. Do you have any idea what senators actually do?

Do you know all the work Sanders has done 'behind the scenes,' if you will, in support of good legisation?

The number of bills sponsored has NOTHING to do with the effectiveness of a senator

[Demsrule86]

64. I sincerely wish I saw any evidence that he has supported the ACA at this critical time.

[riderinthestorm]

148. Bullshit. Bernie has been one of the staunchest defenders of the ACA

His Twitter and Facebook pages defend it daily.

He's lead numerous rallies across the country.

There are too many links to post on his activism in support of the ACA. You'd have to have been willfully blind to miss his work. Here's a couple...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/30/politics/democrats-unite-against-health-care-what-next/index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-lead-dems-hold-rallies-save-obamacare/story?id=44794110

I am sick of the deliberate lies being spread. Google is your friend. Friend him on social media - ffs there's a plethora of info on Sanders fighting for the ACA.

[Arazi]

149. From today: Sanders says saving the ACA is the first priority

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029602629

[ucrdem]

152. He says no such thing.

He has a series of tweets promoting his MFA bill and doesn't mention the ACA even once: https://twitter.com/SenSanders

[Arazi]

153. Yup. It does. The current R bill he's referencing is Graham Cassidy

The latest move to repeal and replace the ACA

[ucrdem]

154. Nowhere does he mention the ACA in today's feed. It's all about his own MFA bill:

Do a search:

https://twitter.com/SenSanders

[NightWatcher]

45. He's a non-Democrat who gets support outside of his state by promising things he can't deliver

He pitches Leftist wishful thinking and unattainable Populism. If we continue to praise him while he remains outside of our Party, we do damage to our 2020 hopes.

I voted for him in the primaries but have grown tired of his shtick.

(Puts on flame suit)

[Ken Burch]

48. If he's just staying in the Senate, it no longer matters whether he formally joins the Dems.

And we don't need take a "we're not going to do any of this leftie crapola" attitude to win.

The country wants an president who finally puts corporate power in its place, who at least, if nothing else, treats business as something that is just part of this country, rather than being more important than everyone and everything else.

Our party is supposed to be the one that says that people matter at least as much as profit-that the need for profit doesn't outweigh all other needs.

[Demsrule86]

66. If we lose the ACA who do you think will be blamed aside from the GOP of course.

I already heard it today on sirius.

[Ken Burch]

69. You don't need to persuade me about the ACA

I'm with you on that.

[pangaia]

122. But, Ken, he's "not a Democrat."

[NurseJackie]

46. Interesting. However, it's not very promising or encouraging for...

... and future legislative efforts. I wonder why that is.

[Cobalt Violet]

56. so fucking what?

[Gore1FL]

62. I've been a member of DU for over 16 years.

I miss the era when it was good and not filled with garbage like this.

[dflprincess]

132. This

[snort]

76. He sure sucks.

I mean what a dick, right? Like wow, you know? Big loser. No, Double Big loser! There.

[Iggo]

88. Oh, that's it! Now I'm mad! When's the primary?

[philly_bob]

91. OP has interesting point, but obscured by Refighting the Primary (anti-Sanders) frame

The interesting point is how Republicans may use Democratic support of Single-Payer in yet another effort to overturn ACA. Personally, I doubt such a jujitsu (use your opponent's momentum against them) technique would work.

But most of us are just rolling our eyes at yet another divisive anti-Sanders screed.

[Demsrule86]

118. Nice try...sure there was an alert but it is still here.

[aikoaiko]

100. I remember this article from the Primary Wars era. Nice of you to dredge it up.

You're a uniter, for sure.

[Jamaal510]

105. K&R

[Gothmog]

114. K&R

[CherokeeFiddle]

126. Stuff like this is why Republicans are going to win

in 2018 and 2020. Sigh.....it is literally enabling it.

[LexVegas]

127. ...

[CherokeeFiddle]

129. It is doing just as I said

and playing right into Republicans hands whose aim is divide and conquer us.

[WhiteTara]

130. Shush.

St Bernie of the Little Bird can do no wrong. Or can he? Is his harm unintended? He confuses me. We may lose health insurance altogether next week.

Thank you Nancy Pelosi for working to protect the ACA! And now the republicons are going to spend $50M because they know how effective she is.

Stand strong for this strong woman, my friends. As Margaret Meade famously said, "There is no greater force than a post-menopausal woman with zest."

[ProfessorPlum]

142. This post helps Russia

[Beartracks]

151. Checked calendar. Primaries AND General Election were LAST year. Confused.

Did this OP get stuck in a time loop or something?

===========

[left-of-center2012]

162. I propose a separate forum for all attacks on Bernie

It would 'declutter' General Discussion.

[ImpeachTheGOP]

164. So? That doesn't mean the bills he sponsored were wrong.

It just means that in a bought off Senate the things that are necessary for this country cannot get passed.

[PubliusEnigma]

176. He's an idealist. He doesn't really get things done.