There is a post in a group that I can't respond to ... so I will do so here ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

To use a baseball analogy

I'd rather have a player swing for the fences and maybe fail than a player who says "I'll just let them walk me. It'll be good enough."

Good enough isn't good enough anymore.

Swinging for the fences and failing is a loss. Which is fine, if the game doesn't matter ... accepting the walk, in a game that matters, means a chance to win.

[thereismore]

1. Like all analogies, they only go so far. Life is more complicated than a game of baseball. nt

[rhett o rick]

52. Pragmatism: The Justification to Ignore What's Happening to Those Less Fortunate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511090531

[Jarqui]

2. Except that in this particular case, it seems like we're accepting

a walk in a game we can never win because it's rigged. The umpires (media) have already been bought.We're only going to see pitches in the dirt and if we get close, they'll call us out anyway.

Swinging for the fences is trying to win and end this game for us.

To me, that's the difference. I want to win.

What's the risk of striking out? We see more pitches in the dirt in the rigged game that continues.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. If the game is rigged, as so many claim ...

then, swinging for the fences doesn't matter ... especially, when it leads to striking out.

I do think the game is rigged; but, not how many think ... the rigging is pretending that the game can be won, by playing the game outside of the established rules.

And, that is exactly the fallacy of the Bernie campaign. Whereas, both O'Malley and HRC are playing the game; but, within the rules.

[daleanime]

31. So no sense in....

trying to change the rules?


God, how I hope people don't take this 'lesson' to heart.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. playing outside of the rules is not trying to change the rules. eom.

[daleanime]

50. It's against the rules....

to support the candidate of our choice?

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. How did you get that from anything I have said ...

never mind.

[daleanime]

57. Are we talking about the primaries?

No, you're right. Never mind. Have a lovely day.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. No, I wasn't talking about the primaries. eom.

[retrowire]

62. Let me try?

We're not playing outside of the rules. We're playing by the rules in hopes to change them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. Okay ... I disagree; but, okay. eom.

[retrowire]

74. :( That didn't go as far as I expected. lol nt

[Jarqui]

39. There was a pretty good interview today with Bernie's wife

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280103986

She talked about when he got first elected mayor. There were no democrats or independents on city council. They obstructed everything he wanted to do. Wouldn't even let him hire a secretary.

So after a year, he went to the people. Got some democrats elected and started to reform. I think he gets about 25% Republican support in Vermont.

To me, Hillary Clinton is closer to extending George W Bush than Barack Obama. She's not as bad as Bush - no one is. She'll nibble. The GOP might throw her a bone. She's going to be in a similar situation like Bernie was when he got elected mayor - minority in the house and senate - blocked by gridlock. She can't go to the people as easily - even though she's just been elected - because 60% of the people in this country don't trust her and won't believe her. She's lied so often she'll be like the boy who cried wolf. You need leadership like Sanders offers to have a shot at overcoming that - where he can inspire some people to get his back and stop this nonsense.

Ask yourself "what major things has Hillary led on and accomplished?" in terms of legislative achievement. She's a polarizing figure. There's a lot of people in this country who hate her guts. She doesn't bring people together.

My reasoning is not a fallacy. There's a good chance Bernie is going to fail. The odds are against him. But Hillary has even less chance to accomplish much of substance in the same circumstances. Bernie gives us the best shot to get something of substance done in our present circumstances.

I think I'm being as realistic as anyone. I'm open to rebuttal.

[Bread and Circus]

23. ^^^^ This

[NCTraveler]

3. K&R nt

[immoderate]

4. What's good about being left on base?

--imm

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. What's the sense of NOT getting on base? eom.

[immoderate]

26. Well, it's just as good.

--imm

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. No ... One extends the game until it's over ... the other ends the game right then.

[immoderate]

51. Taking more time to lose is not progress.

--imm

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. And losing right now is not progress ...

BTW, you're sig line is really good ... you should read it!

[immoderate]

65. Thanks. Sometimes I post: "All analogies are odious."

--imm

[tularetom]

5. One thing about humans is

they can rationalize anything.

What's next, "Some times, it's better to just sit on your butt and never even go to the plate. That way, you can't be blamed for failing."?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

6. It's a really strained analogy.

[Bleacher Creature]

7. Thank you. This is such an important point.

People are facing real life issues and are depending on actual solutions that will help them and their families. Promising something that you can't deliver is irresponsible and cruel.

Swinging for the fences is fine, but also a gamble. I'm not willing to gamble with people's lives, especially when it's done solely to satisfy some sort of academic purity test. And I'm certainly not ok with it when a sac fly get get in the run.

[Armstead]

12. What can Clinton deliver that Bernie can't?

Think the GOP won't filibuster or block any post office name she might propose?

[Bleacher Creature]

93. It's about priorities and resources.

I obviously recognize that we're basically splitting hairs when it comes to the ability of any Democratic president to accomplish anything with an obstructionist GOP controlling Congress, but there are still differences at the margins. The next President will have opportunities to make some changes, even if solely through regulatory action and judicial appointments. We need someone who can prioritize and focus on those types of incremental changes, at least early on.

Things like single payer are simply not getting implemented on the next President's watch. That's a long range goal that will take fundamental changes at the state level (so that we can undo the restrictive policies that lead to a GOP Congress) and at the judicial appointment level (so that we can start to limit to influence of money on the process). Look at how long it took just to get the ACA enacted. Frankly, I trust HRC to do what is necessary to lay that groundwork for the future, since it involves strengthening and improving the party at all levels. It will also take each and every one of us to push her in that direction.

What we don't need is someone promising something that isn't going to happen anytime soon, and losing sight of what can be done now. If the next President wants to start the process of putting us on the path to single payer, I would support it. But I won't support prioritizing that course of action over everything else, and certainly not with a half baked plan that uses magical asterisks to function at even a basic level.

[Armstead]

94. I agree with much of what you said, except...

In addition to moderation and incrementalism, I believe there have to be priorities and Big Goals and we need to commit to those and sell them and fight for them as relentlessly as the GOP has been selling their big goals and priorities since, well Nixon and then for sure with Reagan onward.

The small steps do matter, but if we cower (ior refuse) to commott to a larger liberal agenda, then we'll remain on the defense while the GOP will continue to do offense.

[Bleacher Creature]

98. No argument from me.

I absolutely want to see us go for the big things in the long run, just as long as we take advantage of every opportunity when it develops. But no question, I never want to take our eyes off the Big Goal.

What it all boils down to for me is that I think there will be more opportunities to do the little things over the next 8 years, and I trust HRC to be better at jumping on those opportunities when they arise. I also recognize that she may not have the greatest history of focusing on the big stuff, but am willing to be as loud as I can to hold her feet to the fire if she is indeed elected.

[EdwardBernays]

8. Walking only gets you so far

we've been playing small ball for decades and the country is a huge mess... what we haven't done in generations is swing for the fence, properly have a go and doing more than just surviving...

[whatchamacallit]

9. Gruel

[Armstead]

10. Stepping away from the plate and lying down because those pitches are "too hard" is....

a definite loss

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. Funny you should bring this up ...

in light of the recent TNC Atlantic piece.

[Armstead]

54. Bernie is not doing everything I'd personally like to see either

I'd like to see the media monopolies broken up, for example. But Sanders is not promising that either.

But he stands at the plate and swings a whole lot more than most

[Binkie The Clown]

11. "Life is like a corn dog."

"I don't know why. It just is."

-- Seen on a bumper sticker

[farleftlib]

13. Banned from the Bernie Sanders Forum?

Naw.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Yes ... I was banned from participating in the Bernie Group. eom.

[farleftlib]

30. Strike 3 - YOU'RE OUT!

Too bad you can't "play by the rules" either.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Actually ... it was more like ...

"Ball One ... from last week's game. You're out!"

[farleftlib]

41. Aw, I know you meant well

and weren't going to troll in the Bernie group.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. I don't troll. eom.

[farleftlib]

48. Isn't that what I just said?

Lurking somewhere you're not allowed isn't trolling.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. I'm not understanding what you are saying ...

reading a post in a group that I can't comment in (i.e., lurking) is not trolling. Is it?

[The Polack MSgt]

32. Banned from Bernie? That is the coolest...

Club out there.

[ScreamingMeemie]

91. The sheer numbers of people banned from Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

is soo freaking ridiculous and a big part of the reason I refuse to step solidly in either camp.

[Alfresco]

14. Playing a smart game or flailing. The smart game wins.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. Yes ... All games (more games) are won by the high percentage play than the hail mary. eom.

[coyote]

15. What is your psychology here?

Expect the same shit, but hope for some crumbs. Inspuring message. You must be a miserable lot.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. First, neither O'Malley, nor HRC are about the "same shit" ...

and it was the crumbles that lead to every lasting societal change in history.

And no, I am not miserable.

[tk2kewl]

16. bottom line...

none of this is a game

[sadoldgirl]

17. I am not a sports fan. Thus my opinion is:

"We must try!" is a heck of a lot better than "No, we can't!"

I'll give you a personal example:

Years ago my sister was about to drown in
a lake overgrown with weeds. I cannot swim,
but there was a terribly leaky air mattress around.

Thus it was for me "I must try!" no matter what.
Yes, both of us could have drowned, but we were
both determined and made it.

What if I had told myself "no, I can't"?

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. But from your example ...

Neither O'Malley and HRC are saying "no I/we can't"; rather, their "we must try" is use of the terribly leaky air mattress to affect the save; instead of, jumping in without the mattress.

[OrwellwasRight]

105. Not exactly.

Clinton said to day that we are "never, ever" getting universal health care. She is not playing to win. There will be no save. There will be crumbs only, and we will be expected to be grateful and accept this as our lot because we cannot do better.

[Scootaloo]

19. It's not the person at bat who makes that decision, it's the pitcher on the other team

Is your argument really that you want the republican party to set our agenda, 1StrongBlackMan?

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. What are you talking about ...

it batter is the one deciding to swing for the fences ... rather than accept the walk.

[Scootaloo]

37. But it's the pitcher that decides whether or not to throw balls

C'mon. If we're going to use tired old metaphors based on a tired old sport, we can at least understand how said sport works.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Agreed ... you seem not to understand that it is up to the batter to ...

decide which balls to swing at.

[Scootaloo]

75. And it's up to the pitcher to decide where the ball goes

You get a walk after four balls. A pitcher who throws four balls is absolutely doing so intentionally. It's a legitimate strategy for the defending team, to get a particular player out of the box at the cost of putting them on first instead. If the team at bat makes their strategy "hope he walks us" though, they're going to lose. And they're admitting that fact. it's like saying "we suck so bad all we can do is hope they give us the game." The kids from "The Sandlot" had more confidence than that.

Your declaration that the people at bat - democrats - ought to 'take the walk' is based on the assumption that the republicans will give them one. it's a losing strategy, one that gives Republicans the power and control over what the Democratic Party does.

[Romulox]

43. Wow. Skewered the lame OP. nt

[Fumesucker]

21. Bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, two outs and your team is three runs down

Do you take a walk or do you swing for the fences?

[whatchamacallit]

29. +1

[jonno99]

35. You swing - if a weaker player is "on deck". You take the walk if you have a stronger player

on deck.

But that strains the analogy...

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. You accept the walk when every pitch is out of the strike zone.

than you are down two and another batter from your team comes up to bat. (See: the Civil Rights Movement)

[Fearless]

44. The analogy is flawed. But you know that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Yes ... I know the analogy is flawed; but, taking it as it is ...

its flaw is what I have addressed.

[dreamnightwind]

27. Wrong

You change everything by statiing the real policies that will help Americans, and fighting for them. Do they immediately get enacted? Most will require longer battles. But the battles will be waged, with Bernie in the White House. Public opinion will come around to his side, and the Reublicans will be fully exposed as the heartless sell-outs they are.

We used to regularly control Congress, until the DLC corporate policies took over our party. Now there are more so-called independents than Democrats, because we're seen as the other half of the sold-out money party.

We win by fighting for what's right, with no apologies, and no concern for what the establishment says is on the table. Reset the table.

You can see this already with Bernie's campaign, just as you can still see how the Occupy movement changed the zeitgeist. It isn't about hitting a home run, it's about working for what is right, and doing so with a progressive leader who hasn't sold his/her soul to corporate donors. Sorry you don't see this.

[Fearless]

42. Walking and not scoring is failing too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. Interesting ...

you seem to think the game is over with the one batter. In baseball, there's the term, "taking the bat out of (the next batter's) hands."

[Romulox]

61. In our version of your tortured analogy, it is the bottom of the ninth. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. It wasn't MY analogy, tortured or otherwise ...

and while it may be the bottom of the ninth, we still get three outs.

[rhett o rick]

46. The problem is that the 99% is badly losing the game. People are literally dying because of

wealth inequality and it's consequences. Accepting a walk is what the winning team wants. We've been taking the walk while they've been scoring home runs. The wealth inequality gap has been growing for decades and continuing with the status quo is killing people via poor living quarters, unfair arrests, and poor nutrition and health care.

It's time to swing for the fences, the Wealthy 1% doesn't care about the 16 million children living in poverty.

Stop being conservative vote Sen Sanders and fight against the corruption of our government by Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street.

[Romulox]

49. As always, it's easy for a "centrist" to be pleased with the Status Quo. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. If the plan is to go to the plate and LOOK at pitches without swinging, you're going to strike out.

You might get a runner as far as second, but a good pitcher will strike out the side every time.

All one has to do is look at a good pitcher's strike to ball ratio to see that.

So you send your batter up to the plate with instructions to take every pitch and see how far it gets your team. Dare ya.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. LOL ... I know that seemed smart when you wrote that; but, take a look at ...

even an average, let alone a good, pitcher's walk to put out to homerun ratio.

I dare ya.

[cherokeeprogressive]

66. The most walks given up by ANY pitcher in MLB last year was 84 in 196 innings pitched.

That's less than 1/2 walk per inning.

Keep lookin' at those pitches...

Clayton Kershaw pitched 301 innings and gave up 42 walks.

Lookin' at pitches ain't how ya win ball games.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. How many home runs and put out did Kershaw ...

Serve up in that period?

That is my point.

[Depaysement]

59. A batter get three swings in baseball

Not one swing.

If a batter goes to the plate and never swings the bat he or she can never get a hit. A walk is the best you can do and you need the pitcher to throw four balls to get a walk. You'd be a pretty bad hitter waiting for walks most of the time because most pitchers throw strikes.

[polly7]

81. I remember as a little girl one of the first things I remember my baseball coach

saying to us - 'you stand up there and wait for a walk and don't swing, you won't be playing next inning!'. (I played with the boys).

[Depaysement]

86. Sexist and stupid

Too lazy and regressive to teach you how to make contact. Different time I guess.

[polly7]

87. No, he didn't want any of us just standing there watching the ball go by.

He was trying to teach us how to hit. Why is that sexist and stupid???

[Depaysement]

88. Oh sorry I misunderstood

My bad. I thought he was telling you that you couldn't hit because you were girls.

[polly7]

89. Oh, no ... that's ok. I probably didn't state it very clearly,

(I do that a lot).

[ypsfonos]

64. don't wait too long

[Logical]

67. I am glad "settling" is a win for you. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

71. So why doesn't Hillary listen to Silicon Valley when they tell her you can't make a magic backdoor

into encryption that only "good guys" can use, without compromising security (and, by extension, damaging the ability of American tech companies to sell products their customers will reasonably believe are safe and not deliberately weakened against hackers and industrial espionage) ....

why is "swinging for the fences" in the face of logic and simple math okay, but only when it is at the behest of law enforcement types who are pissed that they can't break into everyone's iphone?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/

[VulgarPoet]

78. Because "fuck the little people"

"We deserve to know what you're doing at all times cause if you tell us we can't search you, you're a criminal."

[Warren DeMontague]

82. I'm sure that just like the patriot act, these vital tools necessary to fight terror

won't instead be used to put people in prison for smoking marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-controversial-patriot-act-power-now-overwhelmingly-used-in-drug-investigations/

[betsuni]

76. K&R

[Cheap_Trick]

77. Aww, I have a fan.

Or a stalker.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Or, neither ...

I'm just someone that saw something that I wanted to comment on.

[RobertEarl]

80. That's H for ya

"I'll just let them walk me. It'll be good enough."

[Bettie]

83. So, don't ask

because you won't get anything better than crumbs and if you do ask for more, someone will take your crumbs too.

That's what Clinton is saying these days. Don't ask for better, accept what you are given and pretend to like it.

[ljm2002]

85. Wow let's all go into groups for our non preferred candidates...

...and dredge up posts we can't respond to and bring them here into GD_P. That'll keep things cooking!

[smiley]

90. You also don't put your weakest batter up to the plate

[ScreamingMeemie]

92. Ummmm... Okay?

As a vocal supporter of neither, can we all graduate high school now? Come on folks. This is getting super silly.

[Bonobo]

95. Is it my imagination or are the OPs even more simplistic today than normal? nt

[MerryBlooms]

96. Hosts need to start locking Meta posts. n/t

[morningfog]

97. Bad form. I you can't respond to it, let it go.

Cross group/forum posting is just bad form and lame.

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. I'll be sure to remind you of this when you do it.

[morningfog]

103. Never have, never will.

[Empowerer]

100. Do they know that there are other options in between a homerun and a walk?

And no decent baseball player swings for the fences every at bat. Singles, doubles and triples also get them home.

Jeez . . .

[jfern]

101. Bernie polls better in the general election

So I don't think that was about winning the general election. It was probably about something like doing something about the 32 million uninsured Americans.

[Agnosticsherbet]

102. I am not comfortable swinging at the Fences with the Presidency.

Good governance does not happen when we swing at the fences.

[redstateblues]

104. The Kansas City Royals got to the World Series

by hitting a succession of singles with walks interspersed. They eventually won.

[Cheap_Trick]

109. They also won by never giving up

even when people told them they didn't have a chance. Even when they were up against better funded teams.

Because the Royals have HEART.

[DonCoquixote]

106. very true, but

That works IF and ONLY if we do not have people on the team who have a vested interest in the other team doing well. It is not that we are dealing with straight play, but sabotage. In the case of a ballplayer named Barack Obama, many of the other player, who were oh so happy he was putting people in the stands, still had interest in the other team winning, or at least doing a fair enough job that the bookies could still bet on them. To be even more brutal and honest, Obama IS Jackie Robinson, who had to deal with stands and locker rooms full of people that wanted all the home runs he could hit, yet still called him a loser and a you know what. What is sad is, to continue the team, analogy, many of the people who act like they loved Obama all the time were the same people who made comments about how he should "get them coffee", or who wrote books about how he failed to make "hard choices." Or Umpire Debbie W. Schultz, who invited Bibi Netanyahu to come to congress so he could complain to Obama about not calling Iran out.

Yet they cling to Obama now, and as a result, Obama's fans still stay with them. Not that I see anything wrong with that, because if other teams want to win the big game in November, they will have to warm up a lot better than that old school player Bernie (and no, pitching practice with Cornell west wont help Bernie.) However, in the event that Bill, Hill, Debbie, Paul and others start to act like they can bench Obama and his fans, I fully expect to hear fans boo.

We can disagree about left, right, social, economic , whatever, but I will say this, winning the election is only the first inning. Whether or not any of this works will depends on if we see certain all star teams and star players like Bill and Hill abandon the Obama playbook and roll back to their old ones, in which case, I look forward to joining many of the people I argued with in 2016 going "boo Boo Boo" over those that still, frankly, want Obama's playbook thrown out and his name scratched off the record books.

Hillary, it looks like your team will win. However, do not think that your fans, the ones that were much more loyal than those "independent" folks ruin the suburbs, will let you and Bill party like it is 1999. I dare say, and I may be wrong, that many of those that shut out Bernie's team will be the ones that will gladly hold you in check if you do that.

[Kalidurga]

107. You are right.

We need to start swinging at the oligarchy. And stop playing silly games with them deciding how they are going to screw the little people.

[oasis]

108. If the batter is aware he has only "warning track strength"

he shouldn't risk the loss for his team.