A president can only be as progressive as Congress allows.

[TwilightZone]

A president can only be as liberal or progressive as Congress allows, for the obvious reason that they write and pass legislation. Give any of our top candidates a solid House and Senate and we'd see major progress. Without that, it doesn't matter how many promises a candidate makes or how lofty they are. The presidency doesn't come with a magic wand, though we sometimes wish it did and are sometimes incredibly lucky that it doesn't.

That, of course, means that we need to keep the House and take the Senate. 2020 is a redistricting year, so state legislatures are very important, and we'll need a candidate who will support Dems at all levels and has coattails that will assist down-ticket Democrats. The new president will need to build coalitions and work with Congressional Democrats (and probably an occasional *gasp* Republican) to pursue the agenda that they share.

My primary is today. Until yesterday, I was undecided, in part because it's less stressful not being attached to a specific candidate, in part because I like several of them, and in part for tactical reasons. Many candidates could have fit the bill I outlined above. Many of them dropped out. In the end, I chose Joe Biden, because he fits the bill.

Realistically, this race is down to Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. I have no doubt that Biden will support Democrats at all levels, while Sanders is very selective with his endorsements, usually sticking to those who support him personally or share his ideology. In the reverse, some red/purple-state Dems are already indicating that they may need to distance themselves from Sanders to be competitive. That's not the case with Biden. Biden has a history of coalition building, while Sanders eschews it in the interests of anti-establishment cred. Biden sees us as one party, where Sanders often seems to see us vs. them, even when both sides of the statement are Democrats.

I'm biased, of course, but I just don't see Sanders being capable of (or willing) to do what we must do in 2020. Will he fight for all Democrats or just one the ones involved in his movement? Does he have coattails? Can he assist with down-ticket races? Will some candidates need to distance themselves? Can he build coalitions or is his need to denigrate those who would make up those coalitions ("establishment" ) too ingrained?

[pampango]

1. Bernie has been in the House and the Senate for a long time. He must understand

how the president has to work with the legislative branch.

If - a big IF - he wins the nomination and the general election, while he won't be able to wave a magic wand, the popularity of the issues and policies that he has consistently campaigned on will have been ratified by an election victory.

Will conservatives fight back HARD? You bet they will! Will he get all he wants? Who ever does?

[TwilightZone]

2. Just winning the election isn't enough.

Nor is having policies that a majority wants.

Ask Barack Obama.

[pampango]

3. Agreed. Though promoting "policies that a majority wants" is nothing to be ashamed of, either.

Bring our safety net up to the standards of other developed countries should be the goal of every Democrat - even though it will be hard to achieve.

[TwilightZone]

4. And it is the goal of every Democrat.

I'm just saying that it takes more than just winning the election. That's the first step, of course. If we don't win, we can't set the agenda at all. From the win, it then involves other pieces of the puzzle. We need as many as possible to get make real progress.

Ultimately, I think all of our candidates have similar goals. The way to get to those goals is often where the difference lies.

[Moderateguy]

8. Just because it's hard to achieve doesn't mean it's not worth achieving

The problem here is that people are looking to go back to normal after suffering the orange menace. They don’t want a revolution— which implies more upheaval, they just want to return to normal. That should be the biggest concern for our next President— how to right the ship of state.

[MoonlitKnight]

5. Ok.

So let’s just give up.

[TwilightZone]

6. And you came to that conclusion how?

I just explained how we achieve our goals and pursue our agenda and provided what I feel is the best solution and why, and your response is "let's just give up"?

I'm guessing you didn't actually read it, which is fine because it's rather wordy. You could at least be dismissive in a way that's at least tangentially related to the post.

[abqtommy]

7. Not at all. I agree with the op and that just means we have to win it all! We can do it, let's get

down to it! exit music to movie Next Friday...

[wyldwolf]

9. Bernie has magic "progressive" dust to sprinkle on Congress

[TwilightZone]

10. There was a thread earlier where a Sanders supporter said just promising things was enough.

He didn't care if they got implemented or not. The promise of them and Sanders' insistence that they deserved them was enough, even if Sanders knew he couldn't deliver.

It's not the first time I've heard that. I read an article that said that belief is fairly widespread among his supporters, though I can't find it at the moment.

I don't even know where to go with that.

[wyldwolf]

11. that's always been enough for "progressives."

A left-wing legislator who just sits quietly between symbolic speeches, but never once passes or in any way tangibly affects a bill that actually does anything, will not be punished by the left for their laziness. But a legislator who fights actual battles, and causes legislation to be passed that moves the country in some tangibly leftward direction, will not be rewarded for it - they will be tarred and feathered for it. The rigors of actual governance are resigned to moderates.

[TwilightZone]

12. Very true.

"The rigors of actual governance are resigned to moderates. "

I've been calling the "establishment" the part of the party that actually gets stuff done.

[dflprincess]

13. A president who doesn't push for progressive legislation

doesn't get any passed either.

I voted for Warren because at least she'd try. And Ann Coulter said Warren is the candidate that worried her the most because Elizabeth wouldn't give up.

[TwilightZone]

14. You missed the point.

A president can only pass what can get through Congress. Give any of our candidates a solid majority in Congress and progressive legislation will get passed. It may not be 100% of what you want, but no one ever gets that because we're not all on the same page on everything.

First, you have to win the nomination. Second, you have to win the presidency. Meanwhile, you have to achieve a majority in both houses. Skipping steps or missing them doesn't work.

Promises aren't worth anything if you can't get in a position to do anything about them.

I would argue that it would be better to under-promise and over-deliver instead of the reverse. Win on the basics, then push for details. Nothing gets through Congress unscathed anyway.

[dflprincess]

15. No I didn't.

The point is, even with a majority or a near majroity in Congress, we have to have a president willing to push progressive legislation that will actually make a difference to people.

And we have to have a president who is willing to keep pushing and not give up or who starts bargaining from what should be the compromise position.