Voting for our progressive agenda, which the American people support, is not risky.

[Uncle Joe]

Link to tweet

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. If the American people support Bernie's agenda,

why is Biden cleaning his clock?

[pampango]

12. If polls (on candidates and on policies) are accurate, the answer would seem to be

personality or perceived electability.

Democratic primary voters may support the policies of one candidate but perceive another one as more electable or someone they can relate to better. A perfect candidate may be one who was perceived as relatable/electable and shares your policy preferences. 'Perfect' candidates are hard to find, so we often have to choose between these factors in deciding whom to vote for.

[beastie boy]

17. If I understand you correctly,

voting for Bernie's agenda, according to Bernie, is not risky. But voting for Bernie, according to primary voters, is.

All the more reason for Bernie to drop out as soon as possible and get back to promoting his agenda and not his presidency.

But something tells me Democratic voters see risks in voting for Bernie's agenda. Here's the existential risk that I see and fear: Bernie's plan is not to govern by consensus or being President to all Americans. His plan, which he often eludes to, is to govern by decree, in the name of "the movement", or "the people", with him defining who "the people" are. To me, this comes dangerously close to the autocratic banana republic model of government.

[pampango]

18. I largely agree. 'Voting for Bernie's agenda' is something the polls show is popular.

'Voting for Bernie' is less so. Whether that makes Bernie more 'risky' or that Joe is perceived as more electable and relatable is, of course, a matter of opinion.

If you perceive Sanders as some kind of authoritarian-wannabe who wants to take us 'dangerously close to the autocratic banana republic model of government' then we fundamentally disagree. I do easily see that Trump and the GOP would portray him as a scary 'socialist dictator in the making' ("You don't want us to be like Venezuela do you?" ) if he were our nominee.

[beastie boy]

22. I have no issue with Bernie's socialism.

Nor do I have too many issues with his agenda, except to say it is not achievable in the way Bernie is pushing it.

My concern with Bernie methods is one I would have had whether it came from the left, the right or the center. He is proposing (and he is very clear and consistent about it) to rule rather than govern. The difference is, the latter requires building consensus among, and the former building pressure on, the institutions that are responsible for governing. This is the fundamental difference between a democratic republic and an autocratic republic. To take it further, there is only so much pressure the governing institutions can take before they fall apart. Even if history is ignored, we are seeing this process unfold in the Trump administration.

Call me an out of touch establishment incrementalist, but I want to preserve the institutions that served us so well for so long, not destroy them.

[pampango]

23. If I believed that Sanders wants to 'rule not govern', I would agree

If I saw him as an autocrat-wannabe, like our current president, I could not support him no matter how much I like his policy ideas.

Incremental progress is often the best we can hope for - FDR and LBJ excluded perhaps. I do prefer incrementalism ‘with a lofty long-term goal’ to incrementalism ‘to avoid a lofty long- term goal’.

[beastie boy]

25. Bernie said as much himself.

His whole schtick is to build a movement and use it as leverage to make the whole process of consensus building, which he knows he cannot possibly achieve, irrelevant. In other words, circumvent the legislative branch in the name of the "movement". This alone points ho his intention to ignore the separation of branches of government and govern by decree. I don't see how else to interpret this often-stated goal of his.

[pampango]

27. Bernie said he wants to rule not govern? Ignore the separation of the branches of government?

You make him seem like Trump. No thank you.

Of course, he wants to build a 'movement' that would lead to a progressive congress which, he has acknowledged, anyone would need to enact a progressive agenda. FDR needed a movement in 1933. His policies had to get through congress and largely did. FDR had not had a progressive congress, his agenda would have been stymied.

[beastie boy]

29. Not in these exact words, but yes, he did.

Scary, isn't it?

He is promising to enact his entire agenda as soon as he becomes President, yet there is no mention of how he will deal with the opposition in Congress. I can't for a second believe that he is completely oblivious that he will be overwhelmed by the opposition in Congress. In fact, he keeps alluding to this. What is the alternative of him accomplishing his progressive agenda in the first term if not through Congress?

I believe you can answer this question yourself.

[pampango]

31. Oh, that's all you have. I thought you were implying that he said he wanted to rule not govern.

Instead, it is 'He has grand ideas but will have trouble getting them past congress, so he must be an authoritarian-wannabe'.

If (a big IF) he got elected to the presidency on the progressive platform that he made clear, the pressure would be on congress which, I would hope) would be more liberal than it is now - if this were a 'wave' or 'movement' election - to respond to the vote of the people for progressive programs.

Would congress resist? Does the sun rise in the east? Of course some elements in congress (the GOP as a block of course) would resist 'socialism' (as they called Medicare and the New Deal). Might Sanders' progressive policies never be enacted? Certainly a possibility. He has been in congress and the Senate for long enough to know how things work.

[Uncle Joe]

38. +1

[beastie boy]

39. What kind oif idiot do you think he is?

No one will ever say he will rule, not govern. Hitler never said it. Putin never said it. Trump never said it. But they all did it.

If you require an autocrat to say to your face that he is an autocrat before you get it, even if it were to happen, it would happen at a time when it would be too late to do anything about it.

[BeckyDem]

33. +1 Thank you.

[Clash City Rocker]

2. So, better to be ideologically pure and lose. Got it.

[J_William_Ryan]

3. The problem is the messenger

Not the message.

[squirecam]

9. No.

It’s both.

[Uncle Joe]

15. The messenger of a critical yet essential message is never popular

with the status quo.

That's the PSYCHOLOGY behind why "prophets were without honor in their home or country."

(snip)

While there emerged a need to recognise or honour prophets, it was still difficult to acknowledge their immediate presence because the resigned humans’ ego came into play. As briefly mentioned earlier, it was difficult for resigned, egocentric humans to acknowledge the gifts of any individual when that individual was in their presence, nearby, or even still alive. The greater space and time between the presence of the especially gifted person and the average person, the easier it became for the average person to acknowledge their gifts without being made to feel inferior or worthless in comparison. Such was the level of insecurity in humans under the duress of the human condition. A great sportsperson often only received due credit for their achievements after they died, while many gifted individuals died in extreme poverty and anonymity, only to be resurrected and glorified by subsequent generations. Van Gogh managed to sell only one painting in his lifetime, yet his paintings now sell for millions of dollars.

While all talented and gifted people encountered this problem, there was no talent or gift as threatening to the ego of resigned humans as the gift of soundness. Egocentricity in resigned humans was all about trying to establish worthiness at the exclusion of the truth of their corrupted state. The presence of a sound prophet made that all-important exclusion almost impossible to maintain, and it therefore made the business of artificially deriving reinforcement from the world impossible.

A prophet’s uncompromising truthfulness was both utterly confronting and utterly ego-deflating. It follows that the closer in both time and space resigned humans were to an unresigned prophet the more difficult it was for those humans to acknowledge the prophet’s essential difference.

(snip)

The divisiveness of their work greatly impacted upon the personal lives of prophets. To stand against the world of denial was an extremely lonely occupation and it left many isolated from society and without honour in their own family. Christ, possibly more than any other prophet, knew this, stating, ‘Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me’ (Matt. 10:34-37), and, ‘You will be betrayed by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death’ (Luke 21:16). It should be emphasised that Christ was introducing a religion to the world, he was establishing a place of soundness that people could defer to and live through when they became overly corrupted. When sound explanation arrives in the world, as it now has, while it will also be confronting of the world of denial, and thus divisive it shouldn’t be as divisive as the situation faced by Christ because explanation can be understood. Religions were about supporting the embodiment of the ideals in the form of the prophet they were founded around. What happens with the arrival of understanding of the human condition is people live in support of those understandings. There is no faith involved: ‘This is the end of faith and belief and the beginning of knowing’ (Beyond, p.166 of 203). With tolerance and patience, and a preparedness to accept logic, the explanations being presented can be evaluated as true or not. Faith can’t be argued but logic can. If people are prepared to consider and accept reasoned argument there doesn’t have to be conflict and division. The whole purpose of the human journey was to find understanding specifically because it ends the need for misunderstanding, both in ourselves and in others.

(snip)

https://www.humancondition.com/asid-prophets-without-honour-in-their-own-home/

One thing about Martin Luther King, he did NOT have high popularity ratings in the 1960s during the struggle for civil rights, his fight against the war with Vietnam and his fight to lift up the impoverished, aka "least of these."

[Happy Hoosier]

30. Something you folks don't quite get....

When you talk about the "establishment" and the "status quo" you are poking the eyes on long time Democrats. That's not a winning message. Instead of insulting people, just emphasize a positive vision of the future.

[Uncle Joe]

32. Whether winning or not,

whether one likes it or not, it is what it is.

One can't change a system without citing its' flaws and shortcomings or constructive criticism otherwise there would be no need to change it with the only result being the advancement of societal entropy.

Furthermore there is no shortage of Bernie emphasizing an alternative positive vision however when that happens the existing comfortable power structure regardless of party or medium blows smoke about "free stuff" unicorns or how even though every major advanced nation on earth can accomplish something the most powerful military nation on the planet can't possibly follow suit, it's just too hard.

I suppose just another insidious form of American exceptional-ism.

[Happy Hoosier]

36. Then enjoy losing. Again.

Bernie, and apparently many of his supporters, seem to be incapable of learning. This is the way he lost in 2016, and here we are again.

[BeckyDem]

34. omg +1

People have short memories about who fought MLK.

[Uncle Joe]

35. That's true BeckyDem and his legacy has been white washed,

with the emphasis heavily placed on only one third of his legacy.

The parts that most challenged the financial powers that be; aka string pullers are all but intentionally forgotten, "inconvenient truths" and such.

[BeckyDem]

37. And we know why, my friend.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

4. Bernie evidently not getting poll results from

Nina (Jill Stein) Turner

[Sloumeau]

5. The Democrats always wanted a Moderate.

The 27 Moderates running split the vote so much that some people missed that point.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. I rather vote for a Democratic winning candidate than a progressive losing one

Sorry, the votes are starting to add up. Every poll can't be 40 points off. The Biden bandwagon is ready to roll!

[gollygee]

14. +1000

I voted for Bernie in the primary 4 years ago, but he can't win. I'll be voting for Joe here in MI tomorrow. I'm all in. Now, if by some miracle Bernie still gets the nomination, I will be all in for him. Blue no matter who!

[Soph0571]

7. Two words: Jeremy Corbyn

He thought that the UK supported his agenda too. Maybe they did, but they did not trust him on security or the economy.

[J_William_Ryan]

8. The progressive agenda

isn't going anywhere if Trump is reelected; which will happen if Sanders is the nominee.

[OhZone]

10. It fine to support the progressive agenda -

if you support it by policy by policy and not call it socialist, and go overboard.

America is very diverse and really pretty centrist, and, as a whole, they've been sadly conditioned against certain phrases.

Sadly, that's politics.

[JustAnotherGen]

11. Gah

Voting for our progressive agenda, which the American people support, is not risky.

What’s risky is nominating a candidate who supported the Iraq War: Sanders voted to authorize the Afghanistan War
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/20/i-was-wrong-bernie-sanders-admits-barbara-lee-only-member-congress-2001-who-had-it

disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA - Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive (Biden, DNC 202).


Wall Street bailout - Thank you Mr. Biden. It's too bad that Trump has been gutting the safeguards that Elizabeth Warren put in place. The way things are going, we need someone who was on the inside the last time the USA faced financial destruction.

Now he's just being tone deaf. Seriously. The average black woman and suburban moms in America are not concerned with this. We are concerned with their paychecks, safety, health, and putting food on their table and a roof over their heads. We are worried about being able to have access to mammograms and pap smears. We are worried about our drinking water, fracking, and pollution due to Trump's stripping of EPA regulations.

[MineralMan]

13. Oddly enough, the "American People" seem to be making their choice clear.

Sorry, Bernie, but it's not looking promising right now for you. That's politics, I guess. Perhaps you are wrong about what "The American People" want.

[NCProgressive]

16. ...

[brooklynite]

19. ...but Sanders is.

[Uncle Joe]

21. the most committed to that progressive agenda.

[NurseJackie]

20. ...

[Happy Hoosier]

24. But you aren't just voting for an "agenda"

You are voting for a candidate.

Sanders has always been a crummy candidate, IMO.

[andym]

26. What about Elizabeth Warren about her progressive agenda

which was very similar to Sanders. Her poll numbers dropped precipitously after attacks on her Medicare for All plan by more moderate candidates. It appears that many Americans and even many Democrats remain skeptical about very progressive plans like the Green New Deal and M4A. I wish it weren't so, but the polls and election results tell the story.

[tritsofme]

28. The argument about Bernie's "riskiness" is moot. The campaign is over and he lost.