2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI am beginning to hate the word "pragmatic."
We can't beat the Republicans by being pragmatic....we have to be visionary!
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Karma13612
(4,552 posts)like privatizing social security or killing medicare as we know it.
always willing to cut social safety nets and strengthen the MIC
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)HE's being pragmatic now selling us out with TPP?
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)why are you bringing up Obama?
we are talking about Hillary and Bernie.
Obama has been a great President, but he has given in much too quickly on some things.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Putting SS on the block is not Pragmatic. It's suicidal and evil. I'm concerned that she will do the same and it will be easy for her.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)That fight might be difficult. Difficult isn't pragmatic. Better to swim downstream and take donations. Be pragmatic.
Passing TPP, staying put on ACA, ignoring Wall Street malfeasance, extending corporate tax loopholes, bailing banks out when necessary, kowtowing to any foreign policy adventure the Pentagon or Bibi can think up, and hoping to manage to procure a social issue victory or two that you can trumpet is the best for which pragmatic can hope.
Then pragmatically get clobered in the midterms - again - in 2018 because 75% of the electorate feels like they were sold out and didn't bother to go to the polls.
Then run Chelsea in 2024, beacuse she is the pragmatic choice.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Why not fight them? That is why they are in charge...no one wants to fight anymore, just roll over.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Candidates raise money for the party for senate and house candidates. If he wants to take the house and senate to get things done we need money to do it.
That was my point.
sonofspy777
(360 posts)A quick search will find it.
kath
(10,565 posts)and over and over and over...
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)and get back our Democratic Party from the third way corporatists/DINOs who have had a hold on for at least 25 years.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Sometimes good ideas can inspire.
The party and fellow Democrats are doing ok.
If Hillary loses, Bill and Hill can continue to raise money doing their show.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)That party? Or the party that runs on liberal ideas only to negotiate them away in return for Third Way policies? Or the Party that supports "regime change" without a thought to the power vacuum that results? Or the party that refused to prosecute war criminals? Or the party that appointed the very criminals responsible for the 2008 meltdown to key government positions? Or...oh forget it. You've got yours, screw the rest of us.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If he want to be our nominee then he needs to do party building activities.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)And like other body parts, everyone has them and most stink. Polls show you to be wrong. Also, I've never considered a candidate's fund raising for the Democratic Party as a reason for my support. It's about their policies and integrity and that's why HRC trikes out.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)jkbRN
(850 posts)That is the main reason I support Bernie. He does not and will not ever start with a compromise, because he knows by doing that your position can only be dragged further right by the republicans. Whereas, if you start with the most ideal situation, and when having to debate with republicans your compromise will look like what HRC started with.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)jkbRN
(850 posts)And pass it!
Everyone who won't partake in it, needs a serious challenger, and those elections have been completely ignored by DWS. I'm sure Bernie would work very hard to win the house back if he were elected. He talks about it all the time.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Hasn't been doing that for decades?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)The Republicans have not been at all pragmatic. They've been idealists, and it's been working for them. They've swung the government way to the right. Is it crazy to think that fighting as an idealist on the other side could swing the government back?
jkbRN
(850 posts)Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)when you give the other side everything they want from the beginning.
jkbRN
(850 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)While essentially getting nothing in return and letting them continue to frame the debate, (which has been the pattern) and just accepting the status quo cause change is too hard, then yeah, fuck this shit.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)don't want to beat the Republicans.
They want more of the same.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)So very apt.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)She's one nasty piece of work.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 18, 2016, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)
It's how people rationalize the wrong thing. I'm just being pragmatic....
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)right before they sell you out.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)I like living in the real world
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)My major issue in this race is to make sure that the Democrats control the direction of the SCOTUS for the next generation and I am not comfortable that Sanders is viable
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)But do you realize that if all of you who buy the Bernie is not electable stuff voted for him, that would be a moot point?
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Sanders would lack the financial resources to compete and is very vulnerable to attacks. Heck, Sanders Medicare for All proposal has a $15+ trillion price tag that would kill Sanders in the general election.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Good luck in convincing anyone to the contrary
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Ignoring this issue will not make it go away.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)I am not the only Democrat asking this question and the refusal to answer this question means that I and others are free to continue believing that Sanders is not viable and that we need to vote for Hillary Clinton.
The dismissal of the concerns of a large number of Democratic voters is not a good way to win elections
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Bernie wins.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Hypothetical match up polls are worthless in part because the margin of error for these polls are so high and in part because the candidate has not been vetted. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/
Head-to-head polls of hypothetical general election matchups have almost no predictive power at this stage of the campaign, but for what its worth, Trump tends to fare relatively poorly in those too. On average,2 in polls since Nov. 1, Trump trails Clinton by 5 percentage points, while Clinton and Marco Rubio are tied.
See also http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.
No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Matchups have no predictive power on who will win the general election, but they may have predictive power when comparing primary candidates. Obviously, this is unknowable.
Nate Silver didn't address whether head to head matchup comparisons for determining relative strengths are meaningful
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Match up type polls are worthless because of (a) the high margin of error and (b) the lack of vetting of the candidates. Sanders and his supporters keep claiming that he has not been given any media attention which also means that the media has not bothered to vet Sanders. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Again, what part of these polls measure nothing is not clear?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)As such, your supposition is unproved. However, you may be right. As I said, whether the comparison has any predictive power is unknowable. Perhaps that means on its face that we should ignore such analysis. This gets rather deep into philosophical weeds, so I'll leave it at that.
Have a great evening.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)That worked really well for Karl Rove and Mitt Romney in 2012 when Silver got every state right
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I also never said Enten was wrong.
Your post disappoints me in the level of discourse on DU.
antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)The right hates her, the left hates her, young/first time voters are "meh," the 10% in the center seems kinda OK with her but not exactly excited.
The main reason people will have for voting for her is that she's not Trump/Rubio/Cruz. Not being someone is not usually a winning strategy.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Victory unfortunately requires votes.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)useless pro-oligarch conservatism.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Yes, third way pragmatism works rather better for the oligarchs than for common folks.
But another thing that pragmatism does is invoke 'the ends justify the means' mindset. It unfetters it's practioners from all manner of guiding principles. It justifies triangulation. It justifies flip-flopping. It justifies outright lying. IF these things bring about victory they have been pragmatic and good.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)try swapping the words next time you hear "pragmatic" being used by a pol...
99Forever
(14,524 posts)n/t
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)This word was poison at least a couple of years ago on DU.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)but just a wee bit more slowly than if we had an actual "R" in office. We don't need a "magic wand" just a candidate who isn't owned by special interests.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)I can't think of any. This strategy usually ends the same way: with a concession speech and a Republican victor praising his opponent for a "spirited campaign."
LWolf
(46,179 posts)if it means rolling up our sleeves, getting to work, and cleaning up our mess one square foot at a time, moving steadily forward, not moving back, and not expecting a magic djinn to pop in and do it for us.
If "pragmatic" is spun to mean giving up hope and giving up ground, as it often is here at DU and in the larger world, then hell, no. Let's not be pragmatic.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)the neo-liberals have "evolved" to mean something new that benefits their agenda.
earthside
(6,960 posts)From the Hillarians' comments on this thread ... there are going to be Repuglican majorities in the U.S. House and Senate forever.
I am disheartened to see the Hillary Clinton candidacy becoming a platform for little more than 1960s mainstream Republicanism. It shows how far right the country has gone, how extreme right the Repuglican Party has become ... but sadly how the Democratic Party establishment has drifted right.
Last night's debate showed it: while Sanders was visionary and energetic, Clinton was status quo and "pragmatic".
'Pragmatic' in a political sense like this means conceding to reactionary and Repuglican forces from the get-go.
Remember Harry Truman's warning: "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Truman's dream would have been the ACA or something to that effect.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Anyone not being a pragmatist is simply a stupid child and unrealistic dreamer.
Thank you Martin Luther King for never being a pragmatist, but having your dream and acting on it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It means giving up without a fight.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)This plan will not be adopted nationally http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-health-plan_us_569ff110e4b076aadcc50807
Thatd be an upgrade in benefits, even for seniors on Medicare. And while people would have to pay higher taxes, Sanders claims most people would come out ahead financially because they wouldnt be paying private insurance premiums anymore. A typical middle-class family would save about $5,000 a year, according to a rough analysis commissioned by Sanders' presidential campaign, while society as a whole would end up saving something like $6 trillion over the next decade.
To help pay for his plans unprecedented benefits, Sanders proposes to extract unprecedented savings from the health care system. Here is where the details get fuzzy and hard to accept at face value, even beyond the usual optimistic assumptions that figure into campaign proposals. Sanders expects a large portion of the savings to come from reductions in administrative waste, because insurance billing would basically end. Another big chunk would come from squeezing the industries that produce health care services and supplies -- and squeezing those industries hard.
That last part should set off alarm bells for anybody who remembers the fight to pass the Affordable Care Act. Two particular episodes from 2009 -- one widely publicized, one barely noticed -- are a reminder of how much power those groups wield in Washington. For Sanders to realize his vision for single-payer health care, hed have to overcome even greater resistance than Obamacares architects faced. And Sanders has offered no reason to think he could do that, which is something Democratic voters might want to keep in mind.
Two lessons from Obamacare
The first and better-known episode from 2009 was the battle over the public option -- a proposal, crafted by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, to create a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers for customers. Hacker and others figured the public option could dictate lower payment rates to suppliers and providers of medical care, just like Medicare does, thereby keeping premiums low and forcing private insurers to match them.
Voters liked the idea, according to polls, and experts had certified that it would save the government money. But it ran into huge opposition -- not just from insurers, who didnt want the competition, but from doctors, makers of drugs and medical devices, and hospitals, all of whom understood the proposal would cut into their revenues....
Bernie's vision vs. Hillary's
No, this grim political reality doesnt mean Sanders or anybody else should stop advocating for single-payer. Progressive achievements like the minimum wage and civil rights began as ideas that the political establishment once dismissed as loopy. And the kind of reform that Sanders envisions would have a lot going for it. Single-payer works quite well abroad and a version of it could work here too -- even if, as Harold Pollack and Matthew Yglesias noted recently at Vox, it would ultimately require compromises and trade-offs that supporters rarely acknowledge.
But voters comparing Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who has proposed bolstering the Affordable Care Act rather than replacing it, should be clear about the choice they face. This isnt a contest between a candidate who can deliver health care nirvana and one who is willing to settle for less. Its a contest between a candidate imagining a world without political or policy constraints, and one grappling with them; between a candidate talking about what he hopes the health care system will look like someday, and one focused on what she can actually achieve now.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)You can be as visionary as you want, but if you aren't pragmatic about it you'll get nowhere. One of the reasons Obama defeated Republicans twice is because he was far more pragmatic than they were.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)This is a great editorial from the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.
Meanwhile, when asked how Mr. Sanders would tackle future deficits, as he would already be raising taxes for health-care expansion and the rest of his program, his advisers claimed that more government spending will result in higher growth, which will improve our fiscal situation. This resembles Republican arguments that tax cuts will juice the economy and pay for themselves and is equally fanciful.
The Washington Post is agreeing with Prof. Krugman's analysis
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)The GOP promises increased tax revenues due to tax cuts and those revenues are fictional. There are many who believe that Sanders's cost savings are in the same category
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)To scared to risk anything? Gosh, how 'pragmatic'.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)We need to elect some people with courage.
Yupy
(154 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)As used by centrists, "pragmatic" seems to mean, just accept whatever is and clap louder.