My personal issue with Bernie Sanders...

[untonuggan]

I like most of his platform, and I like that his presence is pushing the dialogue in the Democratic party further left.

Just...the Executive Branch can't magically make all of those things happen without the Legislative Branch (which is currently trapped in partisan gridlock thanks largely to the Tea Party).

So as far as I can see, either:

1. Sanders gets elected, nothing gets through Congress (unless we get a new magic Congress not controlled by Republicans!)
2. Sanders gets elected, does everything via Executive Order (reversible, sketchy continuation of extension of executive powers).
3. ???

I feel like HClinton (I refuse to call her by her first name unless we're going first names all around)  has a somewhat better shot at getting things through -- even though the Tea Party hates her and probably does not want to cooperate -- because she's a realist and also let's be honest probably has a fair number of favors she can call in as needed.

Am I wrong? Can he get things passed somehow that's not "destroy the Constitution's separation of powers because Congress is not doing its job but also who does my job next?"

Comments

[worlds_of_smoke]

I can see what you're saying. Yes, Clinton gets things done, but I feel like Sanders isn't incapable of compromising when it's pragmatic. I also think that he's not afraid to say "this is what I want" and to start from that position. Clinton will inevitably start from what she can get which, in the end, is playing into the Republicans' hands.

The way I think of it... -tilts head- Okay, I don't know if this is going to make sense.. XD But if you're trying to whittle something, it's easier to start with a stick, not a tree. And the Republicans are trying to whittle our government to nothing. I see Clinton's working with them as her handing them a stick, while Bernie's more of a tree. She's giving them less to whittle at in the first place, which means that, ultimately, they have more power.

But.. Honestly, I'm afraid there's no way we could win. Regardless of who's in office -- whether it's Clinton or Sanders -- the Republicans aren't going to work with them, regardless of how much their asses are kissed. Hell, they may not end up working with any Republican presidents, just because they're that contrary.

I don't know where that leaves us, but I'm really scared.

[sincere]

You and I are thinking along the same lines! Right now the Republicans really need to sort out their own business before anyone could dream of working with them.

If we elect anyone who won't stand firmly against them the way they stand firmly against everyone else, that person might end up steamrolled.

[worlds_of_smoke]

Yeah. And I worry that Clinton is too compromising. And if Bernie takes a stand on some of the left-wing things that are popular with people and the Republicans refuse to deal, it would look bad on them.

I mean, I'll vote for Clinton if she wins the nom. It's the only choice in that case. But I'm not 100% convinced that President Bernie would be 100% unproductive.

[sincere]

I agree with you. I appreciate what he's doing for our national conversation and I like his views and I'm genuinely impressed by his sincerity, but I don't know if Sanders has a toned-down, willing-to-compromise mode. I do know that Secretary Clinton does "get things done", which has resulted in her seeming very conservative at times.

It's not better to have partisan gridlock than to have to compromise. Maintaining the status quo means inaction on a lot of things that we really need action over before it's too late or becomes a lot harder.

BUT...

With that said, I ultimately think the question is a little different. The Republican party has reached a critical mass of uncooperative: there are enough people in their party leadership who want cooperation under absolutely no circumstances and consider any sort of concession weakness that their own party leaders are quitting because they can't get anything done and they're so hated even by their own party. They've literally threatened to shut down the government unless they get exactly what they want, multiple times, and have only stopped their insane game of chicken because the Democrats won't yield.

What compromise can you reach with people like that? Can literally anyone bring this Congress to the table, even the moderates (or, hell, reasonable adults) in their own party? I think the real question is:

1) Someone not a conservative asshat gets elected, Congressional Republicans try to talk to them, the Freedom Caucus splits off, starts their own party,
2) Someone not a conservative asshat gets elected, Congressional Republicans try to get faction unity by going further to the right, they start losing moderate voters,
3) ???

I wonder where we go from here.

[slayerofgod]

The Republican party has reached a critical mass of uncooperative: there are enough people in their party leadership who want cooperation under absolutely no circumstances and consider any sort of concession weakness that their own party leaders are quitting because they can't get anything done and they're so hated even by their own party. They've literally threatened to shut down the government unless they get exactly what they want, multiple times, and have only stopped their insane game of chicken because the Democrats won't yield.

That's pretty much my stance. It really doesn't matter who a Democratic president is these days. Politics on the right have reached a point where cooperation is practically unheard of no matter what is promoted.

So knowing that, go Bernie.

[untonuggan]

I kind of have this dream of Clinton pulling some LBJ style shit to get stuff done...but honestly, I don't know if that would even work. (Also, some of his stuff was underhanded. Then again, he did get us the Civil Rights Act *and* the Voting Rights Act, so I'm not really complaining.)

[untonuggan]

Yes, this too. Ugh.

This is why non-Presidential elections are really important, because the only way to get not conservative asshats into either house of Congress is to vote in those. (Also, the people who get elected there are usually local politicians moving up the ladder, so...)

Then again, I live in a Democratic district and I loathe my Democratic Congressperson because he's very "pro national security" and IMO makes some skeevy compromises to further that agenda. >.> I would probably vote for a moderate Republican just to get this dude out of office, because I dislike him *that* much.