To this day no one has told me how Hillary will get the republicans to fall in line

[RobertEarl]

I have read that what is feared is that the republicans will make sure Hillary falls in line with them.

We sure saw Bill bend over for the republicans, and then we saw what they did to him.

As for Bernie, if he does get elected, it will be on the shoulders of many millions of fed up, pissed off with the government, active minded people who may just be able to herd cats to raise hell in DC and make the republicans there run for their lives.

[zappaman]

1. How original.

[Aerows]

38. When's the last time

that you made an OP, referenced the article, and posted it so that DUers could get more information?

You might want to take a peek in the mirror if you think anything you do is original here.

[zappaman]

41. When's the last time

that you made an OP, referenced the article, and posted it so that DUers could get more information?

You might want to take a peek in the mirror if you think anything you do is original here.

[Fearless]

46. Complete bull.

I've seen many.

[Aerows]

60. Thanks for standing up for me, Fearless

Many of us are here on DU to discuss *facts*, current events and to bring something *positive* to the community.

New information, a different way of looking at things, those are posts that benefit DU and its people.

If all that somebody has to bring the table is derision, mockery, and bitterness, maybe they should start looking for POSITIVE things to say about their candidate, my candidate, your candidate, or hell, I'd settle for "I like ice cream, it is delicious!"

The snark gets tiring. I probably should have put that person on ignore long before now.
(Yes, it is a dangling participle, but I tend to answer posts like I would in person)

[Fearless]

65. I can handle the dangling particple if you can too.

I'm sure I'm guilty of a few!

And you're quite welcome.

[Aerows]

68. .

[Fearless]

69. I don't mean to alarm you but...

I think we just took part in a nice conversation in GD-P...

We may have to be quarantined for further study.

[Aerows]

72. What strain of kindness is it,

and how contagious could it be?

[Fearless]

73. One could only hope quite contagious.

[Aerows]

74. Here is to

being nice to each other instead of mean!

[Fearless]

76. .

[Aerows]

47. An hour ago

discussing the absurd communication from my Representative (I use that term incredibly loosely because he represents nothing I agree with), Steve Palazzo.

It's sitting right in GD.

[zappaman]

57. well

[Aerows]

64. Ha ha!

apparently you cared enough to respond.

I hope you have a lovely evening and whatever that chip is that's on your shoulder you can shrug it off.

You are witty. In my most humble opinion, if you turned that caustic sarcasm to the GOP, instead of fellow DUers, you might find fewer things to "lol" and "rofl" about. You might just take part in an intelligent conversation!

[Hissyspit]

182. Yeah that? That meme?

That's you losing the argument.

[Fumesucker]

2. That one I know: A warm purple space

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/hillary-clintons-warm-purple-space/386288/

Answering questions at a women's conference in Silicon Valley earlier this week, Hillary Clinton told Re/code's Kara Swisher that if she ran for president, she wanted to "bring people from right, left, red, blue, [and] get them into a nice, warm, purple space where everybody is talking and where we're actually trying to solve problems."

[RobertEarl]

3. Purple Place?

A Warm Purple Place? Where the Purple People Eaters do eat?

Are we sure Hillary is not off the rocker? A Warm Purple Place? Surely you are making a joke out of this?

[Fumesucker]

4. Does the Atlantic have a satire column I'm unaware of?

I've been fooled before.

[RobertEarl]

5. That's no joke?

I bet the handlers who handed her that one are in the corner laughing their asses off.

Again, tho, sticking with the topic, how in the hell is Purple gonna get the pubbies to kiss her ass? We saw what they did to Bill, and I doubt he ever thought of purple. It wasn't purple, remember, it was a blue dress.

[sheshe2]

32. You just said the woman....

that is running as a Democratic contender for the office of President of the United States may be off her rocker? Hmmm, is she off her rocker because she is crazy or are you making an ageism snark.

Are we sure Hillary is not off the rocker? A Warm Purple Place? Surely you are making a joke out of this?

Actually she is our front runner and you are being decisive on a DEMOCRATIC BOARD.

[DonCoquixote]

43. I am not saying she is off her rocker

but I can and will indeed question her judgement skills, especially if she thinks she can bring in red politicos and make them cooperate when they have shown that no only will not not do so, but that the Deep pocket donors and weak-minded voters will reward them for EXACTLY that sort of behavior. After all, today's antics by Congress are the things that one year ago, we would say "Oh come now, no way they would be THAT crazy." As long as Koch write checks, and FOX does propaganda, there will be no room for purple, just a mess where blue is melted down, and then the Hillary supporters will expect us to cheer about how blue this nasty shade of Magenta wax is while the GOP pours it onto our faces!

It has nothign to do with age or sex, this purple analogy described would be folly it is was said by a 40 year old male.

[sheshe2]

61. Well a poster did say that and...

I guess you are here explain what they meant.

And...

but I can and will indeed question her judgement skills, especially if she thinks she can bring in red politicos and make them cooperate when they have shown that no only will not not do so,

Care to explain how Bernie will do all this? How will Bernie get the reds to heal to his will.

[DonCoquixote]

95. I don to speak for any poster

but slammed the idea that anyone who criticizes Hillary is somehow a racist/ageist/insert demon here.

and no, he may not, but at the very very least, he will do two thing Hillary cannot do, which is make it clear that they will not get things they want, and forces them to overextend their aggression, making it very clear who they work for. The problem with "purple" is that we start off knowing we will have to compromise with the GOP in some way. Until the GOP is forced to look like idiots, they will not even think of compromise.

In short, we will NOT work with the reds, and that is fine, because at the very least, the Reds will learn that they cannot get what they want unless they offer us something.

[Bohunk68]

118. They are FLYING Purple People Eaters and they are everywhere.

[progressoid]

178. Mmmm...Pie

[restorefreedom]

21. i know just the place

[Agony]

39. That's not purple! where did you go to art school?

[restorefreedom]

55. i just couldnt

resist that reference

[appalachiablue]

81. I think Purple Place is by Prince. And it's awesome!

[stillwaiting]

129. That purple will have a lot more red in it than blue on foreign policy & domestic economic issues.nt

[jwirr]

163. Just like President Obama did for his first 6 years. The Rs

hate her and she will have the same problems he did.

[daleanime]

6. The same way it's always been done.....

when you're going where they want to go, they will follow.

[RobertEarl]

13. Going where they want...

That's what it looks like Hillary will do. After all, the r's are about taking care of big money, and Hillary is taking big money. They are on the same yacht.

[CentralMass]

7. :-)

[JaneyVee]

8. No one has told me how Bernie will get Democrats to fall in line.

Hence the lack of endorsements.

[jeff47]

11. So your theory is the Democrats would go against the person

who won the Democratic nomination, and then the presidency.

I guess the Clinton supporters on DU been asking for loyalty oaths from the wrong people.

[wyldwolf]

23. There is precident for it.

Jimmy Carter had a very chilly relationship with Democrats in Congress.

"You guys came in like a bunch of pricks, and you're going out the same way," a furious Tip O'Neil told a Carter operative when the president gave his concession speech before the polls had closed on the West coast, hurting several Congressional Democrats in tight races.

[jeff47]

26. Yes, and there's also precedent for Democratic insiders overturning the popular primary vote.

Doesn't mean either one was good for the party. One got us Nixon. The other got us Reagan.

[wyldwolf]

28. Really? You have proof of that, of course... right?

[jeff47]

33. Are you not familiar with the 1968 primary? Guess you got some history to read up on.

That clusterfuck, including a lovely riot, is why superdelegates were added to the Democratic primary. So that there would be a formal mechanism to override the popular result.

I guess the thinking was there might not have to call out riot police if they have rules to override the vote in place. Though it did take them until 1984 to actually get superdelegates passed.

[wyldwolf]

35. you said the popular primary vote was overturned by insiders.

You've not come close to proving that.

Superdelegates were added AFTER the '68 election - actually in 1982.

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.

Some Democrats believed that these changes had unduly diminished the role of party leaders and elected officials, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. The party appointed a commission chaired by Jim Hunt, the then-Governor of North Carolina, to address this issue. In 1982, the Hunt Commission recommended and the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that set aside some delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs.[6] Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented for the 1984 election, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%

Appears YOU need a history lesson.

Now, PROVE your assertion the primary vote was overturned by party insiders.

[jeff47]

40. So you didn't even bother looking at wikipedia before replying?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1968

Total popular vote:

Eugene McCarthy - 2,914,933 (38.73%)
Robert Kennedy - 2,305,148 (30.63%)
President Johnson - 383,590 (5.10%)
Hubert Humphrey - 166,463 (2.21%)
Unpledged - 161,143 (2.14%)

Humphrey was the Democratic party nominee in 1968. Doesn't quite align with the popular vote result, does it?

Humphrey got the nomination because only 14 states + DC had actual primaries. The remaining states had caucuses, and Humphrey was able to make enough deals with the caucus delegates to get the nomination. The caucus state delegates were party insiders, and went with the party leadership's choice.

Meanwhile, a riot erupted outside the convention, so the TV showed lovely footage of Chicago police beating rioters while the convention was going on. The rioters were protesting the Vietnam war, and installing Humphrey who refused to oppose it (mostly because he was LBJ's VP).

The combination of that convention and RFK's assassination were the major factors that lead to Nixon getting into the White House.

[wyldwolf]

48. Sure I do. Apparently YOU don't

based on your statement superdelegates were the reason for how the '68 primaries turned out - something that actually happened 16 years later.

Psst! Nominees aren't chosen by popular vote. Never have been. And frankly I'm surprised you're still trying to argue some point here.

[jeff47]

50. Superdelegates were proposed in response to 1968. It took 16 years to pass it.

Believe it or not, the party's rules do not magically appear the instant before they pass.

The other major response to 1968 was to increase the number of states that have primaries instead of caucuses. And you can't have us rabble just picking the nominee!!

Psst! Nominees aren't chosen by popular vote. Never have been. And frankly I'm surprised you're still trying to argue some point here.

You asked how the party overruled the popular vote. There's your answer. The fact that you want to change the subject kinda indicates you were hoping I wouldn't be able to show that party insiders had actually done so.

[wyldwolf]

54. Not true. 'Progressive' revisionsism

Super Delegates were established as a counter to the McGovern-Fraser Commission that made the composition of the convention LESS subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.

Some Democrats believed that these changes had unduly diminished the role of party leaders and elected officials, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. The party appointed a commission chaired by Jim Hunt, the then-Governor of North Carolina, to address this issue. In 1982, the Hunt Commission recommended and the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that set aside some delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs.[6] Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented for the 1984 election, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%.[7]

Super delegates WERE NOT used before 1984 and were not in response to the 'popular vote' of '68 as you contend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#History

The party DID NOT overturn the popular vote. There was no need to. It isn't how nominees are chosen.

[jeff47]

56. So 2% is more than 40%?

The party DID NOT overturn the popular vote.

The guy who got 2% of the popular vote was the nominee. The guy that got 40% was not.

Saying they overturned the popular vote does not mean they were required to follow the popular vote. It means they did not nominate the guy who won the popular vote. Shockingly enough, this kinda upsets people in a Democracy, even when the people doing it are not required to follow the popular vote.

And superdelegates were not invented in 1982. They were formally recommended in 1982. The idea was bouncing through the party as more states turned to primaries in the wake of 1968.

[wyldwolf]

62. It's irrelevant. The popular vote doesn't pick the nominee

The guy who got 2% of the popular vote was the nominee. The guy that got 40% was not.

Irrelevant. The popular vote doesn't pick the nominee. It didn't then. It doesn't now. It NEVER has - no matter how much you seem to want it to be so.

And superdelegates were not invented in 1982. They were formally recommended in 1982. The idea was bouncing through the party as more states turned to primaries in the wake of 1968.

Which adds ZERO to your point. Super delegates were not suggested because of the '68 election. There were suggested as a counter to the McGovern-Fraser Commission which sought to lessen the influence of the party insiders. One more example of people attempting to change the established rules when the rules didn't work to their advantage.

[jeff47]

122. Then why were you so upset when I pointed out the DNC had overruled the popular vote?

Didn't like where you put the goalposts?

Which adds ZERO to your point. Super delegates were not suggested because of the '68 election. There were suggested as a counter to the McGovern-Fraser Commission

They were formally suggested. The idea had been proposed informally for a long time before that.

which sought to lessen the influence of the party insiders. One more example of people attempting to change the established rules when the rules didn't work to their advantage.

Fucking Democracy. We can't have that!!

[wyldwolf]

135. Disputing your BS doesn't mean I'm upset

Didn't like where you put the goalposts?

History is set in stone. There are no goalposts to move.

They were formally suggested. The idea had been proposed informally for a long time before that.

Still had nothing to do with the outcome of the nomination in '68 as you originally asserted.

It's hysterical watching your squirm like this.

[jeff47]

136. My "BS" that you labeled "doesn't matter" when your disputing of it utterly failed?

Here, let's make this simple: Who won the most votes in 1968? Who was the Democratic nominee? Are they the same person?

History is set in stone. There are no goalposts to move.

Then it was pretty dumb of you to start with the claim that the DNC has never overruled the popular vote.

Still had nothing to do with the outcome of the nomination in '68 as you originally asserted.

Uh...I didn't assert they used superdelegates in 1968. That's your strawman. I "asserted" that superdelegates were created partially in response to the chaos of the 1968 convention.

It's hysterical watching your squirm like this.

You're looking at a mirror.

[wyldwolf]

137. Ask anyone on DU if superdelegates had anything to do with the '68 nomination.. and then...

... ask anyone if the popular vote is the determinant of the nominee. Go ahead. I dare you.

[jeff47]

138. So both moving the goalposts and incinerating a strawman.

Good job! You're totally winning with that strategy!!! And aren't flailing at all!!!

Again, you entered the sub-thread incensed at the idea that the DNC had overruled the popular vote in 1968 and demanded proof. I gave proof. You are now claiming it doesn't matter. Then why'd you reply in the first place demanding proof?

Sometimes, it's better to walk away instead of continuing to desperately construct strawmen around rapidly migrating goalposts.

[wyldwolf]

139. Twisting in the wind. You have nothing to back up your contentions

[jeff47]

144. My contentions that 2% is less than 40%?

Yeah, that's waaaaaaaaaaay out on a limb.

[wyldwolf]

145. your contention that super delegates had something to do with the '68 primary outcome

[jeff47]

146. No, that's your strawman. As pointed out to you repeatedly.

You do realize that my posts are still up there, right? That anyone can read them? And that lying about them is not terribly effective since anyone can read them?

So, when I say superdelegates were created partially as a result of the 1968 convention, how does that mean superdelegates caused the 1968 convention result?

Does causality run backwards through time in your world?

[wyldwolf]

147. that was your position from the start

[jeff47]

148. Uh, no, that was your strawman from the start.

My position is out of the chaos of the 1968 convention, the DNC wanted a mechanism to do the same thing without the chaos. So the idea of superdelegates was tossed around and eventually passed.

But now you're hoping that repeating bullshit long enough will make me go away and you can declare victory.

[wyldwolf]

149. that was your position from the start

Your position from the start was party insiders - super delegages - overturned the popular vote in '68. You were obviously clueless the popular vote doesn't decide the nominee and that the popular vote was not overturned - it still stands as a matter of public record.

[George II]

67. No. They'll all support Hillary Clinton.

[jeff47]

119. Thanks for the non-sequitur. It really added to the conversation about how Sanders

would get congress in line after winning the presidency.

But since you brought up Clinton, could you explain, specifically, how Clinton gets anything through Congress? 'Cause it looks like you think the same people who set up the Benghazi committee would suddenly do as Clinton orders.

[George II]

123. Yours wasn't a non-sequitur?

On that note, I haven't seen anything in the conversation that demostrates how Sanders would get either side of the aisle "in line" up behind him should he be elected.

[jeff47]

125. Well, you could actually read the post I replied to

And thus find the context. But that's harder than only listening to yourself.

On that note, I haven't seen anything in the conversation that demostrates how Sanders would get either side of the aisle "in line" up behind him should he be elected.

So you think the Democrats in Congress would decide to oppose the Democratic nominee who wins the presidency. Apparently, you've been demanding loyalty oaths of the wrong people.

But again, you brought up Clinton. How does she get anything passed the Republican Congress?

[thesquanderer]

30. You think Dems who endorse HRC won't support any Dem that wins?

That makes no sense, and obviously contradicts what happened in 2008.

Really, I think most of the Dems in Congress who support HRC would be okay with most of Bernie's positions as well. They have their reasons for supporting HRC... whether favors/relationship/history with the Clintons, or a sense of wanting to promote party unity, or feeling she's the safer bet, or sure, maybe preferring her more centrist positions, but I don't think too many of them would actually withhold their support from BS if he were elected. Even the more centrist among them will find more in common with Bernie than they will with the Republicans, whose platform seems to get ever more extreme.

I also dealt with this topic in my reply to you in post #98 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251666014

[ucrdem]

9. Why don't you ask General Petreus?

He seems very intelligent.

[AgingAmerican]

10. Bill didn't bend over for the Republicans, sorry

He owned them at every turn. He burned them on every budget. For all his faults, he always stood with the middle class.

As for Hillary, there is no getting the Republicans in line. There is no dealing with them. There is no compromising with them. They never compromise and you will get burned every time playing nice with them.

[jeff47]

12. Yeah! That's why NAFTA didn't pass!

And Glass-Steagal wasn't repealed. And a bunch of tough-on-crime laws failed. Because Bill Clinton totally defeated the Republicans!!

So.....did you think none of us remember the 90s?

[AgingAmerican]

17. He did defeat them

At their own game.... They called it, 'triangulation'. They did it to take any momentum away from the GOP congress at the time. The Republicans didn't convince Clinton to sign away Glass-Steagal (which passed by a veto-proof margin). He did it willingly. Clinton wanted NAFTA. The GOP didn't coerce him into it. Greenspan did.

[jeff47]

19. So he defeated them by doing what they wanted.

You have an odd definition of "defeat".

[AgingAmerican]

22. He beat them at their own game

By taking their positions. His welfare policy is a prime example. At the time it was called, 'triangulation'.

Of course it sucked for us because it just drove the country to the right. It was a stupid game they played at the time.

[jeff47]

25. Yeah, fuck those staving poor people. We have a game to win!!!

Do you realize yet that you are actually harming living people? That gutting welfare actually kills real, living people? That "tough on crime" bullshit kills real, living people?

This isn't a basketball game. These are the lives of 350 million people. And you are cheering over hurting about 100 million people, because a Democrat did it instead of a Republican.

Triangulation wasn't a win. Triangulation was fucking over enormous numbers of people with a shrug and "what'cha gonna do about it?".

When you propose to do the harm your opponents want to do, you do not win. You lose your soul.

[creeksneakers2]

78. The alternative

Welfare was one of the most unpopular programs in U.S. history. The Republicans would have won more elections with the issue and harmed the program much more. Clinton didn't eliminate it. He put a 5 year limit on it.

[jeff47]

110. Little problem with that theory: They weren't winning elections.

Yes, they won the presidency, but they did not do nearly so well at other levels of government until after Clinton ended welfare.

And no, the 5-year bullshit is not "saving" it. It's a phony attempt at trying to hide the harm Clinton caused.

[jwirr]

168. They did not even get blamed for the damn mess because

Bill gave them cover. The new welfare reform was a Democratic program. And Democrats got blamed for it.

It is one of the big reasons I do not support Hillary even today.

[frylock]

164. So Bill won and we lost..

but Bill looks good, and that's what is most important.

[Fearless]

49. Nth dimensional chess is just code for

Being fucked over and pretending that you won.

[Hydra]

71. Nth Dimensional Chess:

Having no idea what game you are watching.

[jwirr]

165. Now you are talking. He wanted it.

[Duckfan]

84. Another reason we need to work our collective asses off to get Bernie elected.

If that happens, expect Glass-Steagal to come back. And don't forget a large turnout means Dem's can win some House seats-not to mention state legislatures/Governors seats.

[jfern]

14. You never looked at his actual record

[AgingAmerican]

15. I was a political junkie in the 90s

I was there. I remember. The right wing things he did were his ideas. They called it, 'triangulation', and at the time they used it as a tactic to take the wind out of the sails of Newt Gingrich. It did that, but it was crap policy. He never should have fallen under Greenspan's spell.

[jfern]

16. Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying

It seemed like everything he did was just Republican-lite.

[jeff47]

18. So he "owned" the Republicans by doing what they wanted. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

44. That.

But the republicans wised up and by the time Obama got his chance they wouldn't even vote for their own crapped oversion of a national health care system.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. A steaming mountain of horseshit.

[AtomicKitten]

20. Fall in line? Shit, she'd be conspiring with them to the detriment of the American people.

Just like her husband did with NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, Telecommunications Act of 1996, Wall Street deregulation including the repeal of Glass-Steagall, punitive welfare reform, expanded the death penalty, ignored the Rwanda genocide, pioneered extraordinary rendition, "tough on crime" bill that opened the door for the private prison industry, etc.

Both Clintons should do America a solid and retire from American politics. They have a pile of money, the spoils of this kind of shit legislation and policy, to count.

[RobertEarl]

27. And...

Bombed Iraq. Then, as SoS, Hillary did pretty much what the republicans wanted, and they loved her so much they started up the Benghazi stuff.

We can't take any more Clintons. Just say no to more Clintons.

[AtomicKitten]

31. hear, hear

[bigwillq]

29. She probably won't.

Neither will Bernie or Biden or O' Malley or Webb or Chafee

[RobertEarl]

36. Bernie stands the best chance

Like Bernie says, he hopes to start a revolution and get people involved again in playing an active role backing his efforts. Obama said that in 2008, but in 2009 he went his own way. In 2008, people came out of the woods to vote for Obama because of the hope for change. I don't think Bernie will let us down, and many r's are gonna get their asses kicked out of DC, by us.

[TheProgressive]

34. Republicans will not vote for Clinton...Period...

If Hillary is the Dem candidate, the republican nominee will be president.

If Sanders is the Dem candidate, he will be president. Something to think about.

[riversedge]

59. You dream a lot

[Thinkingabout]

45. Prove to me a candidate currenty getting around 25% of the polling should win primary elections with

a candidate getting the large amount polling numbers should not be able to get the votes in elections and the elections should go to the candidate with the lesser of the votes, how is that fair? Whether there are super delegates or not, the winner of the primary elections in each state should be the nominee. I do not understand the problem of the winner of the elections should not be the nominee.

[jeff47]

126. Ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Some black guy with a funny name did it only 7 years ago. I'm surprised you forgot.

[Thinkingabout]

133. Are you saying Obama won the nomination with 25% of the vote? I am surprised you think

he only received 25% of the vote. Guess I need to take some more math classes.

[jeff47]

134. At this point in the 2008 primary, he had around 25% of the vote.

Are you operating under the illusion that polling results never change?

[Thinkingabout]

140. No, the poll numbers will and can change, but are you under the illusion Obama is

Running this time? Obama was quiet impressive in his keynote speech and stirred lots of people, I am not feeling the same with any of the declared candidate against Clinton.

[jeff47]

142. And there were plenty of people who felt like you in 2008.

Hence the PUMA bullshit that the Republicans tried to enflame into something real. Did that mean Clinton won?

You are welcome to vote out of fear for worse than the status quo. There are others of us who will vote for better than the status quo. Whether it's Obama's rhetoric that he did not live up to, or Sanders's record.

[Thinkingabout]

156. Do you think it was Obama not living up to his agenda, if it was Obama doing all of the deciding

We could say he failed, it wasn't the way things happen. The status quo does not scare me either and campaigning everything will be just fine when history shows a different outcome.

[jeff47]

171. He abandoned "Hope and Change" for DLC-style politics-as-usual.

Thus, he did not bring about as much change as he could have. He had an army of very excited young people ready to help push an agenda, and Obama said "You can all go away, I got this".

And fact is, he did not "have this".

The status quo does not scare me either and campaigning everything will be just fine when history shows a different outcome.

Yes. You vote out of fear of things getting worse. That's my point. You fear what may happen, so you are making the "safe" choice. You'll only lose a little bit more when Clinton pre-compromises her proposals.

That does not motivate me at all. The status quo is a slow road to the same destination of failure. And I'll still be alive to reach that destination on the slow road.

So the short-term fear-based campaign being mounted by Clinton supporters on DU may sway you, but it can not reach me. You will need a different tactic to reach anyone 40ish and under. Because we are sure that the status quo will eventually bring us all the fears you shout about. All Clinton would buy is a little more time before those fears.

[Thinkingabout]

173. How do you think the status quo get changed?

[jeff47]

174. In a democracy, by voting.

And no, this is not a moronic "Sanders is Jesus and will save us all!" position. Electing Sanders would not suddenly make the US a paradise, any more than electing Reagan suddenly made the US horrific.

But like Reagan, it would signal a change. Some politicians would seek to enlist the same coalition that elected Sanders, as some Republicans enlisted the same coalition that brought about Reagan. Success would bring about more politicians seeking the support of those people. And eventually that pattern repeating itself changes the country.

Reagan and his friends could never dream of actually accomplishing what Newt's "Contract with America" did. Much less what the current Republican party has been doing.

Similarly, it will take some time to turn the "ship of state" from our current, rightward course. But we have to actually turn the ship instead of voting to only slowly drift right.

[Thinkingabout]

175. Have to agree about the voting, not voting or voting against one's best interest is why we are in

Mess we are today. Getting a Democratic Congress would get the crazies out, it will also take more than one election cycle.

[jeff47]

176. Yep. But not voting is a symptom, not a cause.

Turnout's down because we've done a shitty job of giving people something to vote for. Instead, we've been using "who else you gonna vote for?" and short-term fear as cover for triangulating.

[Thinkingabout]

177. Disagree with giving people something to vote for. Not voting does not provide anything to vote for,

not voting is the child running to their room when they did not get their way. Do you for one second think the Republicans care if Democrats votes, hell no, they prefer we stay home and not vote and this is one less vote against Republicans. It is a win win situation for them. I don't like helping Republicans to continue to be a do nothing congress and hurt American citizens.

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. All she would need is a Congress that will pass the Legislation

That would enact her agenda.

If Republicans retain control of the House no Democrat will get anything done.

[George II]

52. To this day no one has told me how Bernie will get the DEMOCRATS to fall in line!

[RobertEarl]

63. He already has

DWS just claimed Bernie can win the presidency.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=666645

Obama is glad Bernie is running as a Democrat on the party ballots. And the upcoming party debates feature Bernie.

The Democrats, the best Democrats, at least, are already falling in line. Just look at DU polls; 80% plus are voting for Bernie!!

Hard to believe you think no one has told you... it's been all over DU for weeks!

[George II]

66. So why are most of the polls showing that Clinton is ahead, and by a margin of roughly 2-1?

[RobertEarl]

75. Same as 2007!

I don't pay attention to the polls this far out. They can be educational in the sense that they show trends, but the polls have no other real world meaning.

Hard to believe that anyone still hangs their hats on polls at this date. We saw what happened in 2007 with Obama, and Bernie is the real deal.

[George II]

124. Far far from the "same as 2007". In 2007 the Democrats had a charismatic new face....

....running with charm, wit, and personality.

[redstateblues]

112. Bernie's temper tantrums will have the Rs

capitulating in the first 100 days!

[Live and Learn]

53. Jury Results:

On Sun Oct 11, 2015, 08:34 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

To this day no one has told me how Hillary will get the republicans to fall in line
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251666389

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

'Bill bend over for the republicans' Anti-gay rhetoric used as hate speech. Disgusting.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Oct 11, 2015, 08:40 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Lol. Nice try. Ma hah? Ah ha? Razbanyas yatee benee futch ah tinney herongha...
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I guess some phrases piss people off, but really..pretty soon we won't be able to say anything.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bending over has little to do with being gay.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[shenmue]

58. Remember when GD: P was about news on the candidates,

not name-calling and rhetoric?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

70. If Hillary gets in you can bet the Republicans are going to talk impeachment on day one.

[Historic NY]

154. Well at least it won't be talk of a primary....

republicans got to have something to do since they don't govern.

[Orrex]

77. Has any recent Dem president gotten a hostile GOP-majority congress to fall in line?

I don't know if Clinton would be able to do it, but I'm pretty sure that Sanders wouldn't be.

[RobertEarl]

79. Heh

When they see how many r's vote for Bernie, it's gonna scare them into making sense.

[Orrex]

83. Yes, I hear this wishful thinking a lot.

When they see how many r's vote for Bernie, it's gonna scare them into making sense.

It's amazing how Sanders' supporters resort to the language of fear when advocating for their champion.

The DNC is afraid of Sanders, they assure us.
Clinton is afraid of Sanders, they insist.
The GOP will be afraid of Sanders, they claim.

t's a cheap rhetorical tactic designed to preempt any suggestion that Sanders won't be successful; any objection is dismissed as a fear-driven fantasy, thereby sparing Sanders' supporters the responsibility of actually addressing such objections.


To his credit, Sanders certainly wouldn't resort to such tactics. Why do his supporters?

[RobertEarl]

86. Whoosh, like right over your head

Ya see, when the votes are counted, the r's are gonna look and see that many of their party members voted for Bernie, and many independents, too.

Your little diatribe about fear is just more baseless attack on the current revolution sweeping the country. Yours is the cheapest rhetorical tactic and shows that you either don't understand the political ways, or you are blinded by bias to a certain candidate.

Which is it?

[Orrex]

87. Nope, that's a statement of faith, convincing only to the true believers

Ya see, when the votes are counted, the r's are gonna look and see that many of their party members voted for Bernie, and many independents, too.

Yeah, yeah. And when that doesn't happen, will you have the integrity to admit that you were wrong?

Your little diatribe about fear is just more baseless attack on the current revolution sweeping the country. Yours is the cheapest rhetorical tactic and shows that you either don't understand the political ways, or you are blinded by bias to a certain candidate.

That's bullshit posturing, and it's directly contradicted by Sanders' supporters right here on DU.

Yours is the cheapest rhetorical tactic and shows that you either don't understand the political ways, or you are blinded by bias to a certain candidate.

Nope, that's an attack that means nothing to me, especially since it comes from the speaker-for-the-starfish. I've seldom seen you post anything that wasn't straight-up nonsense, and this thread is simply more of the same.

I'm not blinded by bias, so when you make that claim you are either preposterously mistaken or deliberately lying. Recognizing the improbability of a successful Sanders campaign is hardly the same as bias. I will happily vote for whichever Dem is on the ticket. Can you say the same? Or are you one of those Sanders-or-fuck-it people?

[RobertEarl]

94. WOW

You just throw out all kinds of junk. Guess what, Bub, the sea stars are almost all gone and sea life is dying up and down the coast. It's done. Not like you ever cared on whit about nature, eh?

You offer nothing to this discussion and so I bid thee to delete your posts and please, just put me on ignore. You say I offer nothing so why do you even follow me? Just so you can sling crap is why I figure you ever reply to me. I would say good bye, but then that would be a false bye.

[Orrex]

96. Quit posting nonsense, and I'll quit replying to your nonsense.

It's really that simple.

[RobertEarl]

98. Just ignore me, please

I have been ignoring you. I see your name; I usually go on. I should have kept it up here. I apologize for replying to you. My bad.

[Orrex]

99. You might as well ask me to ignore a train wreck

Or to ignore a guy falling off of a step-ladder that he perched on an overturned wheelbarrow at the top of a flight of stairs.

You just can't look away from some disasters.

[RobertEarl]

160. Everyone should read this

If all goes according to plan, Sanders will have won enough delegates by mid-March to be a serious contender for the nomination. That would signal a shift for Sanders; it would be time to court the Establishment. “Then we have to offer fundamental assurances to party leaders who say he’s a socialist. He’s been in the Congress 25 years and his program is not to replace the current system with socialism, it’s to revive the middle class.”

Going back almost a year when Bernie Sanders first talked about running for president, Tad Devine, his longtime strategist, told him he would need $40 to $50 million to get through Iowa and New Hampshire. That was a big number, and for a time Sanders held back, unsure he could raise that kind of money. Sanders has now taken in well over $40 million, “and I don’t think the fundraising is going to stop,” says Devine. Good thing because what he calls “The Plan” for Sanders to win the Democratic nomination is predicated on those dollars -- and doing very well in Iowa and New Hampshire. Sanders came close to matching Hillary Clinton in the last quarter, bringing in $26 million compared to her $28 million. And Sanders wasn’t flying to New York for fundraisers three times a month, or out to the Coast to hit up donors in Silicon Valley. He doesn’t do any of that stuff, practicing what he preaches about the evils of big money in politics.

As the Democratic candidates prepare for their first debate Tuesday, polls show Sanders ahead in New Hampshire and closing on Clinton in Iowa. “The historic momentum that comes from early victories coupled with a different way of raising money, coupled with a strong message -- if we put it together and keep it together we’ve got a real shot at this thing,” Devine told the Daily Beast. By every benchmark, Sanders is ahead of where Barack Obama was as a candidate in ’07, a comparison Devine delights in making. Before Sanders launched his presidential bid, he had an e-mail list with 400,000 names. Before he announced, Obama had 20,000 names. Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention put him on the map, but Sanders struck political gold with an 8-hour filibuster on corporate greed and the decline of the middle class after Obama struck a deal with Congress in December 2010 to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for two more years.

“A lot of people followed him after that,” says Devine. “They liked what he had to say.” Known simply as “The Speech,” it made Sanders a C-SPAN celebrity, and built the foundation for his grassroots fundraising. At the end of September, Sanders had 650,000 individual contributions. “Obama didn’t get to this level of contributors until after Iowa,” says Devine. “This pace is very good by any historical mark. By the time we get to Iowa, we want people to know this campaign is for real, it’s not a symbolic effort to raise a few issues.”


Devine is no novice, he has been at the center of two competitive and, for Democrats, heartbreaking campaigns: Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. He knows what’s ahead. “Swift Boating will look mild compared to what’s coming against Bernie. I get it – but it’s a different age. Our ability to communicate online with tools we never had before – a lot of this stuff, we can just blow up saying it comes from Super PACs.” For now, though, if Sanders is going to be taken seriously as a potential nominee, he has to show that he has the capacity to build a national campaign. The Plan calls for paid staff on the ground by the end of October in every voting state through Super Tuesday – not 50 people like they have in Iowa, or the 40 plus a state director in New Hampshire, but a real presence. A volunteering network online asks people to sign a card and take on certain tasks. The new trade pact that Obama is pushing, and which Clinton recently flip-flopped on, is a prime target for Sanders, especially in the Midwest where manufacturing job losses are blamed on global trade. The strength of the Sanders campaign has not softened the Democratic Party’s resistance to him as a potential nominee. The insiders only understand winning, says Devine. “All of this is predicated on winning early and winning often. If we don’t do that, we’ll never win the inside game.”

Clinton has a huge advantage with party leaders and super delegates, but she hasn’t yet turned out crowds that come anywhere near what Sanders is seeing. And Sanders got his first endorsement a few days ago from a member of Congress, Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva. Last week, it was 27,000 people in Portland, and 24,000 in Boston --more than came to hear Obama at a similar stage in his campaign. “He is demonstrating he can do what Obama did, which is change the composition of the electorate,” says Devine. Sanders has a litany of ideas that hit directly at core sets of voters: working men and women who like social-security expansion, a massive jobs program, and a $15 minimum wage; environmentalists who like his straight-up call for a carbon tax to deal with climate change; and voters disgusted with super PACs who like that he is not reliant on big money. The rationale of the Sanders campaign is that it can win by appealing to disaffected voters and expanding the electorate. Devine said he told the Democratic National Committee they should set up a table and register voters at Sanders rallies. “We’re trying to get them in the door here. It would be smart for the Democratic Party to take advantage of the Sanders’ phenomenon. If you go to a Sanders rally now, there’s a good chance you’ll vote for a Democrat in 2016.” So far, the DNC hasn’t taken him up on the idea. “I think they’re afraid they’ll all vote for Bernie,” he chuckles.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/12/bernie-sanders-s-strategist-this-is-how-we-win.html
50

[uponit7771]

82. The guy with the pink unicorns go the GOP to do what they wanted ... he talked tuff and used

... so pul pit or some shit.

Sanders was asked strait up this question on MTP and bullshitted about millions of people as if the GOP cares about millions of people.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

85. Oh sure, because the Clintons get along great with the Bush family.

[Orrex]

88. Meaningless and petty. Care to try again?

Convince me that Sanders will make a hostile GOP congress "fall in line," and please don't resort to declarations of faith that Sanders will magically gather millions of Republicans and Independents into the fold.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

89. He already said that he has no intention of working with them....

He intends to go straight to the American People. The President has the power to interrupt your regularly scheduled boredom. That actually WORKS. We just haven't had a Democrat willing to do it.

Or, as Harry Reed said when he got the gig, "I'd rather dance with them than fight them."

[Orrex]

91. Great. Sanders has pre-declared himself a lame duck president

He intends to go straight to the American People. The President has the power to interrupt your regularly scheduled boredom. That actually WORKS. We just haven't had a Democrat willing to do it.

In other words, this is another declaration of faith.

Sorry, not buying it. Without resorting to platitudes and statements of belief, please convince me that this will work.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. Obviously you don't know about the bully pulpit....

Probably because nobody has used it effectively lately.

The last one that did was Reagan and we are still dealing with the results.

[Orrex]

93. Sure. And it'll work if we all clap hands and believe.

Good luck with that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

97. I suppose you believe in "reaching across the aisle".

[Orrex]

100. I believe in reality

To wit, if Sanders miraculously wins the primary, then I will vote for him in Nov 16, because that's reality.

However, it is ridiculously premature to declare that a President Sanders would be able to force his agenda against a stubborn and obstructionist congress. That's unquestionably a statement of quasi-religious faith, and it has no power to persuade those who don't already believe.

[Fumesucker]

101. Better to start in a Warm Purple Place of bipartisanship

Where we can all just get along and talk and solve problems, if the Democrats begin halfway towards the Republicans it's so much easier to find agreement.

[Orrex]

103. No, it's much better to dig in your heels and pre-declare a lame duck presidency

"Vote for me, and I promise to get nothing done, thanks to a naive belief in obsolete political gimmicks."

Even if Sanders miraculously wins in 2016 despite your proposed strategy, then we can be sure of a Republican Whitehouse in 2020.

[Fumesucker]

107. Did you ever check out the author on the piece about shared custody you thought was crap?

He agrees with you about Clinton...

Now.

[Orrex]

109. The crazy guy who lives under a bridge in my town & yells at ducks agrees w/ you re: Sanders.

Your point?

[Fumesucker]

111. It's all about ~him~ with that one

He traded in his wife for a new model and then became the most discriminated against minority in America because the ex got custody of the kids.

BTW, did the crazy guy under the bridge call Sanders a Rovian liar in 2008?

[Orrex]

114. If you want to discuss that other thread, post in that other thread

But if you want to call out another DUer, then you should probably take it up with him directly.

[Fumesucker]

117. Oh, I have...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026276064#post317

[Orrex]

121. Check the link.

That's not the thread that you and I were discussing.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

143. Republicans have more seats to defend this time than Dems and voter turnout will be high....

They can gerrymander the House but not the Senate.

Sanders isn't the type to ask pretty please and whine that it's not fair to gerrymander and try to appeal to Republican's sense of fairness or some mythical middle like most Dems do. He is the type to go district by district through the courts.

[Orrex]

150. Further articles of faith

Republicans have more seats to defend this time than Dems and voter turnout will be high. They can gerrymander the House but not the Senate.

We'll see. Nothing suggests that Dems will retake both chambers, let alone with sufficient majorities to support a transformative Sanders agenda.

Further, since Sanders has never led anything larger than a city of 42,000, it's premature to issue firm statements about how he might try to enact his will as President of the United States of America.

His supporters can say that he'll do this or that, and maybe he will indeed try the strategy proposed, but there is simply no evidence that he will do so, nor that he will be successul if he attempts to do so, nor that it might succeed even in theory.

He is the type to go district by district through the courts.

And if he remains in the Whitehouse for 80 years, that might be a valid strategy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

152. Are you a CNN fan?

[Orrex]

155. Does that pass for wit at your pro-Sanders rallies?

I haven't seen nor read CNN in about six years.

I gather that your attempt at cleverness is meant as a zinger-rebuttal for my objections, perhaps shaming me for daring to point out practical reality while you're busy feeling your candidate.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

158. I know someone who's a fan of CNN....

They say it's all pointless because both sides do it and it's always been that way and it's always going to be that way and there is nothing you can do about it.

You seem cynical in that way.

[Orrex]

159. CNN has nothing to do with it.

And I have little interest in (or patience for) wishful thinking or for statements of faith. The bold visions articulated by Sanders' supporters are swimming upstream against cold, unpleasant reality and many decades of precedent.

They say it's all pointless because both sides do it and it's always been that way and it's always going to be that way and there is nothing you can do about it.

I would submit that there is, frankly, nothing that you can do about it and nothing that I can do about it, and not much that a President Sanders might do about it, either.

There is nothing in my lifetime, nor in your lifetime, to suggest otherwise.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

161. That might have sold if America had elected McCain....

They voted for Obama.

He paved the way for Sanders.

[Orrex]

162. Meaningless and unfalsifiable.

If Sanders fails to win the primary, did Obama pave the way for him to lose?

How, in your estimation, did an entirely dissimilar election cycle pave the way for Sanders?

[RobertEarl]

167. You have that one figured out, Spitfire

I think it's more of an "I got mine" - one of the have mores, who is deathly afraid that Bernie is going to redistribute some of their largess to poor homeless people and then they won't be able to take that world cruise.

It shows a lack of real world understanding like we have seen with equal rights. We did not get more equal rights because the r's allowed it, we got more equal rights because the people demanded it.

[uponit7771]

80. She's outlined executive actions already so she doesn't need them, Sanders will soon follow.

[alfredo]

90. We tend to think our candidates are as liberal as us. They aren't.

[leveymg]

102. She will fall in line with them. That's the Third Way way. How do you like your Soc Sec "reform"?

Well done?

[JoePhilly]

104. Jesus would be unable to get the GOP to fall in line.

And Bernie, ain't Jesus either.

The notion that Bernie would have any more ability than Obama has had, or that Hillary would have, to move the GOP, is nonsense.

[KingCharlemagne]

116. 'and Bernie aint Jesus either' - well, now that you

mention it, both were or are Jewish socialists.

Just sayin'

[JoePhilly]

166. And one was nailed to a cross ...

... what do you think the GOP will do if Bernie were to become President?

Worship him?

[treestar]

131. Yep the solution is get the GOP out

No where on DU is there any discussion of seats that could be turned. Nobody seems to care and expects the POTUS to do it all and somehow convince them. Bernie is the new Messiah. No human being can be a POTUS that causes this miraculous "revolution." If the People wanted what Bernie wants, they'd be voting in different Congresscritters.

[99Forever]

105. Yup.

Said the same shit about FDR as they are trying on Bernie.

Fuck 'em. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

[ismnotwasm]

106. That's an excellent question

How DOES one make republicans fall in line? Whether your name is Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

[hootinholler]

120. WOW a serious answer

Thanks for an excellent point!

As Bernie has said even before he declared there is an element of the R party that can not be compromised with, they can only be beaten.

The very few decent ones will compromise for the good of the country, it's our job to make damned sure those people are in a small minority.

[jwirr]

170. One hopes that our nominee will win with a huge lead and

a mandate. And that they will be able to pull in good progressive Democrats on their coattails.

The huge lead would send a message to the Rs that it is time for a change. The coattail wins may just get us the Senate back and possibly (with a miracle) the House. Also it helps to have state governors and congresses in as many states as possible.

[DonCoquixote]

172. the only way possible

by fighting fighting fighting, NOT giving them an INCH of what they want, and forcing them to embarrass themselves and spend money, in other words, the exact opposite of what Clinton and sadly, Obama want to do.

[Romulox]

108. By being a kindred spirit. nt

[hootinholler]

113. That one's easy!

They will be so busy with investigations and other bullshit whatnot that they won't have time to read bills and will vote for anything she slips in there.

Or something like that.

[redstateblues]

115. according to 90% of DUers

she is already a Republican so things should go rather swimmingly

[treestar]

132. It is a good point that they will be investigating

anything that happens that they can remotely dream up has some ill will attached.

[Doctor_J]

180. her ideas are mostly republican in nature anyway

[brooklynite]

127. Of course they have...because Hillary is a Republican sell-out...

...and will be doing the bidding of Wall Street, just like the Republicans.

At least, that's what I keep reading here.

[treestar]

128. She is not promising the moon

She will have to struggle like Obama to keep the government open.

That's why we need to pay more attention to Congressional Elections rather than depending on the Presidency as we seem to do here.

[riversedge]

153. Hillary is building a 50 state strategy as she

builds up her own offices and personnel in each state. It should help draw Dems into Congress if people vote straight tickets. Everything helps

[Xyzse]

130. I don't quite see it as having Republicans fall in line.

I don't believe any of the Democratic candidates can do so to begin with.

One of the reasons I believe that Clinton is a strong proponent for furthering a Democratic cause is due to her contacts and her ability to fill her cabinet.

That is primarily the reason I supported her before Obama in the 2008 election cycle. Please keep in mind that both of them were my last choice on winning the primaries, but since I was left with the two of them, I found myself leaning towards Clinton due to just that.

I found them very similar in terms of policy and in probable ability to lead. I thought she would be stronger than Obama in many ways due to the way I perceived her method was to be. Using her pre-existing support system to effect change. Stating that, I am actually quite surprised that Obama was able to pass the ACA, which I thought was a flawed bill that needed fixing. It still needs fixing, but at least it was a start. Clinton was unable to do that during Bill's term, as she, I believe handled some of that during his tenure. She did that without actually having an office other than being the First Lady.

Please note that I tend to think that much of Obama's issues at this time stems to his inability to fill his cabinet fast enough that he was blocked in many ways after the first few months of his Presidency. In this instance, I consider Clinton being poised to being able to fill those positions fastest. I think that is an important point.

Other than that, I am pretty happy with our choices in candidates for the Primaries. I am still leaning O'Malley, but I have enjoyed Bernie's moves lately, and I don't see why I can't support both at the same time. As for Clinton, if she wins the primaries, I'd be happy with her too.

I mean, we just have to be realistic. Republicans will not fall in line, especially now. They have received way too much validation from the stupidity of the media and their base that to them, any sort of compromise is considered weak or unacceptable. It allows them to fall over the cliff and drag everyone else along with them. This line of questioning, as to having Republicans fall in line, I don't really see any supporter of any candidate being able to say that their candidate can perform such an improbability.

[NCTraveler]

141. It's painful to watch, but I think some of you actually believe this.

"and make the republicans there run for their lives. "

Sanders has brought a lot of new people into the mix who really seem to be able to believe things that are not real. Exciting as some of you will stick around after the election. Worrisome as you will become disgruntled after you figure out how far outside of reality that comment really is.

[RobertEarl]

169. It pains you?

How did the country go about getting the recent more equal rights?

Because the r's wanted it? NO. We are here now because the people demanded it and the courts finally, after centuries of denial, decided that equal rights are constitutional.

The crap idea that some here offer up - this: "We can't have change", is quite disturbing. The only thing real in life is change. Yet you sit there and say change is not possible or real.

I feel your pain, but you are not in the least bit credible.

[mhatrw]

151. Republicans LOVE Hillary! nt

[pinebox]

157. There isn't a chance in hell Republicans will work with her

Every single time I hear this claim from Dems saying "Hillary will reach across the aisle and work with Republicans", I completely shiver. I want to know what world these people are living that they've lived under a rock for so many years and obviously don't understand that Republicans hate Hillary Clinton with more passion than anybody else in politics. Are people living in another world so much that this doesn't occur to them? You think the gridlock in Washington is bad now with Obama? You haven't seen jack shit if she's elected. Wake up people! Did you miss the entire admission that the Benghazi committee is a partisan witch hunt? We're talking decades worth of right wing hate here folks.
To think Republicans will work with her is a study in fantasyland.

[Doctor_J]

179. it will go something like this

1. Hillary offers to meet the republicans "half way". Since she already favors moderate republican solutions, you can imagine what "half way" means.

2. A compromise is reached wherein the republicans get 90% of what they want

3. Republicans squawk because they didn't get everything they wanted

4. Hillarysupporters.com declares that the republican complaining means that Hillary beat them bloody during the negotiation.

[rhett o rick]

181. Other than social justice issues, I don't think the Republicons will have a problem with HRC. nm