How will Bernie get a left of center SCOTUS nominee through this senate if elected?

[Yavin4]

I want to know how Bernie is going to get a strong left of center nominee through this senate.

[larkrake]

1. how will hillary?

[Yavin4]

5. Whenever a Bernie supporter cannot answer a direct question

the response is always, "how will Hillary do...?"

[Duckhunter935]

11. because it is a legitimate question

That you just do not want to hear. I hope he brings the Senate with him by bringing in new voters along with the normal Democrats.

[Yavin4]

42. First, thanks for being one of the very few to answer the question.

Second, how will Bernie get a whole new Senate?

[Duckhunter935]

46. who said that

Read my posts, and several answered your question

Now are you going to delete your false post in your safe haven?

[sheshe2]

58. Define normal Democrats.

TIA

[treestar]

106. Too easy

and doesn't not work. People won't vote for Democratic senators just because they voted for Bernie. You are depending on that evil DNC entirely - when do Bernie supporters ever say a word about Congress other than that Bernie's magic will bring them in?

[Duckhunter935]

112. yeh, right they will elect bernie

And vote the polar opposite for a senator, I think few would do that. It will be hard for Hillary to even nominate one as the Republican house will start impeachment proceedings on day one.

[Bonobo]

43. Of course. Why shouldn't it be?

Your implication is that Hillary can but Sanders cannot.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Okay, here's your answer.

He'll do it the same way Hillary will.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

126. Because the answer is always 'She won't, she can't.'

Because any time that 'direct question is asked', it's always something that no one can do, a strawman put up simply to paint Bernie in a bad light.

[merrily]

153. Because Hillary supporters always post as though he is the only one who will have to deal with

Congress. his track record of working across the aisle is better than hers. If he will have a problem, she will have a problem ten times over.

Also, our choice is between Hillary and Bernie. Comparing them is natural and necessary.

[99Forever]

163. Well bud, perhaps if one of you Hillarians...

... could answer that question, as has yet to happen, us Bernieians would stop asking it.

Step up to the plate and take a swing or 3.

Impress the crap out of us.

[PonyUp]

167. Whenever a Hillary supporter cannot answer a direct question

the response is always, "how will Bernie do...?"

[pandr32]

102. Yes, she is more likely to win the nomination and GE.

[treestar]

105. She won't, because she would pick moderates

so as to get them through.

So how will Bernie get the ultra liberal through?

[frylock]

139. Did Bernie state that he would select an ultra liberal?

[-none]

158. Because Bernie isn't over Center to the Right, he has to be an Ultra liberal?

Bernie is where the Democrats were 60-70 years ago. The Democratic party left the membership. We need to get back to where we were. Electing Bernie President is a first step in dong that.

[frylock]

162. word up

[treestar]

165. I would assume so

Given the posts I read here.

[frylock]

168. Well, you know what they say when one assumes.

[gyroscope]

2. Of course it would be so much easier for Hillary to push through a liberal nominee

the GOP just loves her!

[tularetom]

27. Maybe he's implying that Hillary would not nominate a "liberal"

So, you wouldn't have anything to worry about.

[B Calm]

160. Bingo!

It was a loaded question anyways.

[earthside]

3. The question now is how is Obama going to get a left of center SCOTUS nominee?

Barack Obama is President -- he gets to fill the Scalia vacancy.

How will he do it?

[deathrind]

28. Thank you 😀

[Ed Suspicious]

4. How will Obama?

[Duckhunter935]

6. how would Hillary?

[Yavin4]

7. Four responses to my question

And no direct answer.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. LOL....no kidding

Nobody can answer your question because they don't have an answer.

[Duckhunter935]

12. I answered up thread

Of course you or the OP will not answer ours.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. You didn't answer anything. LOL. nt

[Duckhunter935]

25. yes I did, I can't help you failed to read

And comprehend that he will have a democratic senate due to new votors, independents, and Democrats.

[sheshe2]

60. How....

yes I did, I can't help you failed to read





And comprehend that he will have a democratic senate due to new votors, independents, and Democrats.

He gets all that in 2016???????

[Duckhunter935]

65. yes, we can very well win the Senate back

But you are part of the no we can't faction and do not seem to understand that, sadly.

[sheshe2]

70. In 2016?

[Duckhunter935]

170. yes we can

Sound familiar

[cascadiance]

161. Not only Dems winning but replace corporate Dems like Wyden with primary challengers...

If we can win primary challenges like the one Kevin Stine against Wyden is doing here in Oregon to have less TPP-compliant Democrats being elected, we'll have even less corporate control over the Senate then.

And winning these primary challenges NOW could help us point to evidence on how this revolution in the general election is more likely to happen this year that Bernie leads this revolution then!

[betsuni]

69. What I don't get is how these new people voting for Sanders because they don't

want the status quo are going to feel about voting for down ticket Democrats, many of whom will surelyl be too conservative for them, take money from corporations, etc. --- status quo. Many of his most vocal supporters don't seem at all likely to do that.

[sheshe2]

71. Correct!

[Yavin4]

72. These are some of the Republican states that will have to be flipped

Idaho
Utah
AZ
ND
SD
KS
OK
IA
AL
GA
SC

Look at that list and tell me how a Bernie Sanders/Cornell West type candidate can win in these states?

[sheshe2]

75. Yup.

Let alone give us a Dem Congress and Senate.

[pangaia]

103. A "Bernie Sanders/Cornell West type candidate..??"

Did you actually just type that?

You know, you just took off all your clothes.

[treestar]

109. You've even listed the states!

Never seen a Bernie supporter even do that. Let alone figure out how to flip them.

[treestar]

108. THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^

They have no plans. Nothing. Not a feather of a plan. Just Bernie's magic.

[hobbit709]

13. Well, then you explain it to us.

[Uncle Joe]

22. That's because your question can't be answered no matter who is President. There are too many

variables, could a lame duck President Obama do it?

If he couldn't how would a Bernie election to the Presidency affect congressional elections, what would be the political makeup of the new Congress?

How would a Hillary election to the Presidency affect congressional elections and what would be the political makeup of the new Congress?

What kind of candidates would a President Bernie Sanders or a President Hillary Clinton select?

What kind of effect would those selections have on an unknown Congress?

[earthshine]

76. The answer is Bernie will have "yuuuge" down-ballot coattails and Hillary, not so much.

Bernie is generating enthusiasm across party lines, the youth vote, and independents.

I am quite confident that if Bernie is elected we will also win the Senate. (Increasingly, I am believing that Hillary will never be elected for anything.)

There are no absolutes here, except that absolutely, no answer that we can give is going to satisfy you.

I think it's perfectly fine to answer you by turning the question around and saying, "Well, how will she do it," because it demonstrates the pointlessness of your inquiry.

[handmade34]

173. gerrymandering...

[earthshine]

190. Your point is?

Gerrymandering does not apply to the Senate, and we have a good chance to get it.

We need the Senate to get the SCOTUS.

The house is a problem.

[treestar]

107. It's hilarious

Pure deflection and dodging because there is no answer.

[Yavin4]

120. When a candidate for president openly panders to voters like Bernie is doing

He/She can build a fervent following who will ignore the hard facts of governing.

[George II]

124. Three of the responses were questions!

[immoderate]

8. Bernie will not have this senate.

They will be more left.

--imm

[LostOne4Ever]

85. ^And we have a winner! nt

[restorefreedom]

91. crickets.....nt

[Yavin4]

117. "They will be more left." From these states?

Idaho
Utah
AZ
ND
SD
KS (Voted for Brownback twice)
OK
IA
AL
GA
SC
NC
OH
KY (Just voted for a Tea Party Governor who won't expand Medicaid)
WI (Voted for Scott Walker twice)

[Goblinmonger]

127. As to WI. Feingold is running again.

You know, they guy that won a bunch of times until the Walker debacle.
So that's one very far left progressive that has a pretty good shot on that list.

[Yavin4]

129. Feingold lost in 2010. It's not a sure thing.

Also, that's one. You'll need much more than that.

[Goblinmonger]

133. It'st he state I live in, so it's the one I can comment on.

What will Hillary need?

[immoderate]

130. Aren't the other states holding elections?

--imm

[Yavin4]

131. There are 26 Republican held Senate Seats up

http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/

[immoderate]

132. So the senate could swing Democrat.

In any case it will be a different senate.

--imm

[Uponthegears]

169. You are so fun

No we can't! No we can't! No we can't!

Let's see. . . . South and North Dakota . . . historically prairie populist (read "socialist&quot states skewed right by now-departed oil field workers and religious right voters who will not come out for any plausible Republican nominee. Arizona . . . watch the demographic shift. Kansas, voted for Brownback twice AND GOT PUNISHED FOR IT. North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin . . . purple to blue-ish purple. All of them are potential Democratic pick-ups PARTICULARLY with the highly energized base Bernie brings with him.

Now, if you are saying they won't be "liberal" democrats, let me add, "How about you Third Way-ers get your folks to show some loyalty to a Democratic president?"

[hobbit709]

10. how will ANYONE get one through this Senate?

[stonecutter357]

14. K&R!

[earthside]

33. It's a stupid question.

It is Pres. Obama's responsibility to appoint a new member of the Supreme Court and THIS Senate is supposed to confirm.

Sen. Sanders has one vote as a U.S. Senator, it is not his responsibility to get Pres. Obama's appointee through -- that would be Pres. Obama and Sen. Reid's job.

[thesquanderer]

136. Not a stupid question, because the next President will likely have the opportunity to appoint...

...one or more Supreme Court justices as well, especially over a potential 8 years.

That said, the obvious answer is, the next President will not need to (and in fact, by definition, will not even have the opportunity to) get a nominee confirmed by this Senate.

If a Dem wins the presidency in November, there is a good possibility of being able to flip the Senate. There will also be additional opportunities in subsequent elections.

[Chasstev365]

15. Hillary's Nominee would be Confirmed!

Because they will be center-right with ties to Wall Street just like the Clintons!

[840high]

32. Good answer.

[mikehiggins]

64. HRC's nominee would NOT be confirmed BECAUSE she would do the nominating.

You guys really don't understand how deep the hatred for HRC runs in the GOP. Even if the Senators WANTED to confirm someone their base would primary each and every one of them who did.

[jfern]

16. It'll be hard, but he'd have at least as a good a shot as Hillary

[Motown_Johnny]

18. Compared to Hillary? Come on... try to be serious.

[Ed Suspicious]

19. It's funny that you had to take this one back to camp.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110747100

[Duckhunter935]

21. great minds think alike

[Ed Suspicious]

23. .

[m-lekktor]

31. that's what they always do so that way the stupid shit they say only gets "high fived"

and not shredded to bits.

[840high]

35. Yes - and you can count on the

same ones doing the rah-rah.

[Duckhunter935]

20. why do you have to go to a protected group and

Post outright falsehoods if not lies. At least two answered your question. I would have answered but you posted in your protected group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110747100

[hobbit709]

24. It's only to expected from the Camp Bansalot hideout.

[beam me up scottie]

55. LOL!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

29. I believe that's the whole point of posting this thread in the first place

Any answers at this point on questions like this would be purely speculative. Dismiss any answers that are provided, then score points in a protected forum by claiming nobody can answer the question.

[Duckhunter935]

36. and where over 500

People are not able to refute the lie.

[restorefreedom]

93. we passed 500??

oh, what good company i am in!!

[Duckhunter935]

94. I think it was 526

Last I checked

[restorefreedom]

96. and 301 subscribers.....fascinating. nt

[SunSeeker]

125. GDP has gotten so toxic that many Hillary supporters don't come here.

Some folks have hit the "trash" button on GDP so it does not show up when they open DU.

For these readons Hillary supporters have been adking that Hillary supporters posting in GDP also cross-post to the Hillary Group, so those folks can see those posts.

[Duckhunter935]

128. should they be allowed to post outright lies?

In that protected group?

[SunSeeker]

135. You were asking why the cross-posting and I answered your question.

There are many inaccurate statements posted on DU. Unless it violates TOS or is over the top, etc., the proper response is to refute the "lie." If you think a lie has been stated in a protected group in which you are banned or just don't want to post in, IMO the more appropriate response is to make your own refuting post elsewhere on DU. I think all the alert stalking in protected groups is shameful.

[Duckhunter935]

143. sunseeker, ok

My opinion is that protected groups should not be used to post lies and insults where there is no way to respond to that post. The only true recourse is to alert. It is odd for a person with that user name to stand up for protected groups that ban the sunlight of discussion.

[SunSeeker]

148. No, alerting is not your only recourse. You can make your own post.

Alerting on and hiding posts "ban the sunlight of discussion."

[Duckhunter935]

154. posts are hidden not removed and can still be seen

The only proper recourse is in the group and to the people in that thread. That is not possible if I start another thread they do not know about and I am unable you post a link in the offending thread.

[SunSeeker]

174. 5 hidden posts block all further posts, and drive Hillary supporters from this site.

Further, even after just one hide, a poster can't post further in a thread in which they have a hidden post.

You are wrong, posting in a protected group is not the "only proper course." You can let someone know you are talking about their post in another forum through a PM.

You can make it clear what post you are referring to in your OP by posting a link to the protected group thread you are responding to. Bernie supporters do it quite often, citing to Hillary Group posts. Indeed, one did it rather derisively in this very thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511228507#post19, to which you piled on and responded, "great minds think alike."

None of those actions indicate any desire to have a conversation. It looks like plain old bullying to me.

[Duckhunter935]

176. like skinner says

If you do not want a post hidden, watch what you say and how you say it. A protected group does not give you the right to lie, insult or attack others. You post that crap and you take your chances. He'll the Hillary supporters even have opened their own site to coordinate attacks on members here. Feel free to go to that bubble.

[SunSeeker]

178. I knew you would change the subject once it was obvious you were wrong.

With regard to juries, you know damn well they are stacked with anti-Hillary DUers who have a pretty low threshold for what they consider insulting when aimed at Bernie fans, but a pretty high threshold when it comes to posts against Hillary and her supporters. Post 19 that you were so fond of is one example. What is the point of that post other than to attack that Hillary supporter? And you gleefully joined in, rather than alerted.

[Duckhunter935]

180. How did I change the subject?

Like I said, the only real rebuke for a lie, insult or attack in a protected group is to alert. Those groups are not a free zone to attack and insult others, DU rules still apply to them. Post #19, lol. That was making a joke at the poster having to go back to the protected area to post outright lies that they could not get a question answered from Bernie supporters, even when several provided answers to include me. Go ahead and alert if you think it is such a bad attack, just be prepared not to be able to alert for 24 hours. Ever heard of a jury blacklist? As a firearms owner and a RKBA supporter here, I think I have more that hate me than any Hillary supporter on DU. I am under constant attack and just watch what I post and very rarely get an alert on one of my posts.

[SunSeeker]

183. You went from talking about how to respond to protected group posts to defending hides.

Now you're defending the pointless mocking of a DUer. Your complaint about the "hate" directed at RKBA supporters on this site is hypocritical considering how you gleefully attack Hillary supporters.

[Duckhunter935]

184. Sure, right

Who is defending hides? I state how not to get hides but the last and really only way to rebuke a poster in a protected group is to alert and let the jury decide if it is hidden. It is correctly mocking a poster that posted here and had the question answered by several posted but then had to run and post in that protected group outright lies. That should be mocked.

Note to jurors, notice how many time the posters question was answered and the time stamps including my answer. Then check the post in that protected group. Also note the OP was politely asked to edit or self delete the protected group thread and refused.

because it is a legitimate question Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:39 PM
That you just do not want to hear. I hope he brings the Senate with him by bringing in new voters along with the normal Democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511228507#post11

First, thanks for being one of the very few to answer the question. Sat Feb 13, 2016, 11:02 PM
Second, how will Bernie get a whole new Senate?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511228507#post12

Why can't Bernie supporters ever answer a direct question? Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:39 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110747100

care to self delete your protected thread Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:56 PM
Now that it has been proven to be factually incorrect

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110747100

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511228507#post37

Nope. Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:25 AM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511228507#post74

[SunSeeker]

185. No poster here has explained how Bernie will do it.

Saying that Bernie will bring in a new Senate by bringing in unprecedented numbers of new voters begs the question: how is Bernie going to do that? He certainly did not do that in Iowa nor NH compared to Obama, as Rachel Maddow pointed out.

I see you resort to mocking smilies when you have nothing and want to change the subject again.

[Duckhunter935]

186. so, why did the OP thank me for answering the question?

You keep changing the subject from hides and alerts in a protected group.


I am sure Hillary will do much better with even lower turn out numbers

[SunSeeker]

187. I took it as thankfulness for an attempt to answer the question.

Most did not even try. They responded with deflections.

I have not changed the subject, you have. I am answering your questions, not raising new questions like you are doing.

[Duckhunter935]

189. many did answer it

and you do not speak for the poster. He thanked me for answering him and I take that person at their word. Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, are they getting heavy yet?

[frylock]

142. Many Hillary supporters helped to create that toxicity..

worked real hard at it, even. This OP and the ensuing thread in the safe haven are classic examples.

[SunSeeker]

144. No, you can't blame Hillary supporters for the Bernie supporter conduct.

Just being a Clinton supporter will get you insulted and bullied on this site.

[frylock]

146. Hillary Supporter started chirping before Bernie ever announced..

so yeah... no.

[SunSeeker]

150. God forbid some Hillary supportwr should "chirp."

[frylock]

152. Yes, and god forbid Berniebro should respond.

Know the game ffs.

[SidDithers]

172. +1...nt

Sid

[arcane1]

181. Do they ever actually talk about Hillary in that ridiculous group?

It's always a whine-fest about other DUers whenever I see it.

[Duckhunter935]

182. not very often from what I see

[basselope]

26. Bernie will have a democratic Senate... duh.

[farleftlib]

30. This may seem like a foreign concept

but you fight to get what you want instead of caving without even trying. What good does it do to get another pro-corporate justice on SCOTUS? Yeah for Hillary, the underwhelmer and panderer. This is why Bernie continues to surge in the polls and her numbers remain stagnant, who wants more of the same?

There are plenty Right and Center-right justices already and they're there for LIFE.

[napi21]

34. That's an easy one. He won't have to deal with THIS SENATE!

Its up to US to make SURE that the Dems take back the Senate FOR SURE, and give it all we have to take back the congress. And don't let anyone tell you that can't happen in this redistricted nation, but I disagree. Yes, it's a long shot, but somehow, we have to get to all those lackadaisical Dem. & Ind. voters and convince them that IT DOES MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE if they take the time to go to the polls.

We all need to our best to make that happen.

[Duckhunter935]

37. care to self delete your protected thread

Now that it has been proven to be factually incorrect

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110747100

[Yavin4]

74. Nope.

Because my question has not been answered thoroughly.

[Duckhunter935]

89. not surprised

Typical of a clinton supporter to post outright lies in the protected group where they can not be challenged due to the huge amounts of blocked posters. You stated in that post your question was not answered impuning Bernie supporters. It was answered several times even though you do not like the answer. Another typical thing to move the goal posts when you don't like the answers. Sad but typical for many but not all of the supporters of Hillary.

[earthside]

38. Then the Hillarians go into their 'safe space' and ask ...

"Why can't Bernie supporters ever answer a direct question?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110747100

The OP is a stupid question and if you want an answer to "Why can't Bernie supporters ever answer a direct question?" ... then don't go to your 'safe place' and ask it.

The direct answer to the stupid question is that it is a stupid question, to wit:

It is Pres. Obama's responsibility to appoint a new member of the Supreme Court and THIS Senate is supposed to confirm.

The responsibility to get Pres. Obama's appointee through THIS Senate would be Pres. Obama's and Sen. Reid's. And, Sen. McConnell's if he is responsible enough to fulfill his Constitutional duty.

[hobbit709]

41. They would rather emulate our simian relatives

[m-lekktor]

45. lol nt

[Humanist_Activist]

39. Honestly, assuming he has a short list, its probably very similar or even exactly the same as...

Hillary's.

There is a pool of contenders, some we know about, some we don't, but I doubt he would nominate someone that even a Democratic majority Senate would fail to approve of.

[quantass]

40. K&R

[rtb61]

44. Seriously WTF is wrong with America

The question is how will Bernie Sanders get a totally neutral SCOUTUS nominee through the senate, one who will interpret the laws literally and the constitution and nothing more than that. No left, not right just the letter of the law. WTF is the matter with you people that you would so corruptly and routinely accept political biased interpretations of the law.
Letter of the law is meant to be the focus of higher court judges. Do like the literal interpretation of the law, rewrite the law, don't just appoint another corrupt ass hat to interpret the law the way you want it interpreted.

[earthshine]

77. As an attempt to answer you, what's wrong with America, at least within this context ...

partisanship, and within that, factionalism.

Political parties are the bane of fair and decent politics and one of the bases of permanent social hegemony.

[Live and Learn]

47. Start by nominating people to the ultra far left, people like me.

After nominating about 20 people like me, he can slip in a left of center nominee that will look quite sane to the GOP.

[KingCharlemagne]

63. I would volunteer to be second in line and I would push for

Free abortions on demand! I would relish the opportunity to get all up in Cruz', Rubio's and McChinless' faces.

[Old Codger]

48. You presume

That the senate will remain the same,how about we all work hard to change that and whoever ends up in the WH will have some sort of a chance to do the right things..

1/3rd of the senate is up for reelection in Nov. we have the power to change the makeup if we work on it...

[RichVRichV]

49. I'll answer directly. It's quite simple.

1) (if we win the senate) - Nominate one and wait for senate to confirm them. If they filibuster and block for 5 straight years (1 Obama, 4 Bernie) bludgeon them over the head with it in the up coming elections. Cycle good nominees if needed to force them to keep blocking.

2) (if we win the senate) - Scrap the filibuster on appointments (nuclear option). Nominate one and confirm them.

3) (if we lose the senate) - Nominate one and wait for senate to confirm them. If they block for 5 straight years (1 Obama, 4 Bernie) bludgeon them over the head with it in the up coming elections. Cycle good nominees if needed to force them to keep rejecting.


This is the exact same strategy we would use with Hillary as president. Blocking SCOTUS appointments just for the purpose of blocking them (without cause over specific nominees) is unprecedented in the history of this country. There would be a political price to pay for doing so. They may pay that price just for doing it to Obama.


Right now we are in a much better position then we were yesterday. Patience and persistence is the key to achieving our victory. Make the Republicans blink first (or push them over the cliff on election day if they won't). Simply blocking a president's appointment just because you can isn't a winning strategy.

[Yavin4]

57. Here are some of the Republican senate seats up for re-election

Idaho
Utah
AZ
ND
SD
KS
OK
IA
AL
GA
SC

To give Bernie a majority in the Senate, left of center Dems have to win these states.

Do you see that happening?

[RichVRichV]

62. Well there's 2.4 times as many Republican seats up as Democratic seats.

270toWin has 13 of the seats competitive. 11 belong to Republicans, 2 belong to Democrats. They are currently projecting 47 Dems, 50 Reps, and 3 toss ups (on 50-50 split, if we control the presidency then we control the senate).

2016 Senate election - 270toWin



Of the Washington Posts 10 most likely seats to change hands, 8 are Republican:

10 senate races most likely to switch parties - WaPo



There's no guarantee we retake the senate, but there is a very real possibility. Regardless of who control the senate it's still unprecedented for the senate (regardless of party) to continuously block SCOTUS appointments without cause.

[Yavin4]

73. Even if the Dems re-take the Senate

They're more likely to be Hillary Clinton-like Dems, not Bernie Sanders-like Dems.

[RichVRichV]

80. You think Democrats won't confirm a nominee from a Democratic president without good cause?

So now it's both the Republicans and Democrats being obstructionists in your view. Well that goes completely against history. This isn't like passing some bill a president wants passed. Congress has tended to grant presidents their nominations (regardless of party) unless there was an overwhelming reason to reject the nominee. Only recently has that changed, and primary on one side of the isle.

[Duckhunter935]

90. there is no pleasing this poster

[earthshine]

81. That's like, your opinion, man. nt

[earthside]

100. Furthermore, Democrats will lose Colorado if Hillary is the nominee.

Mark Udall got creamed last election because he became the typical risk averse, milquetoast Democratic U.S. Senator who didn't stand for anything.

We've got another one of those, Michael Bennet, up for reelection this time.

And he will get defeated, too, if the Democratic Party nominates as its presidential candidate a boring, center-right, weathervane like Mrs. Clinton.

I'll tell you, those 18,000 to 20,000 people who showed up yesterday in Denver to see Bernie Sanders will have zero enthusiasm for Hillary. If the Democratic Party establishment keeps disrespecting these young people and activists who like Sanders, then there is going to be a split in the party ... no doubt about it.

Either the Democratic Party becomes once again the party of FDR, Truman, Robert Kennedy ... and rejects the neoliberalism and neoconservatism of Hillary Clinton or its days as an effective political force in this country are as numbered as are the days of the Repuglicans.

[Yavin4]

50. Lessons Learned from this thread

1. If you ask Bernie supporters a question as to how Bernie will do anything, the primary answer will be: "How would Hillary do...?"For example, if you ask how does Bernie take his coffee, the response will be "how does Hillary take her coffee"?

2. The most common direct answer is that Bernie is going to bring with him an entirely new Senate majority that will pass his agenda. Yet, there's been nothing about this plan to bring in an entirely new senate.

[hobbit709]

51. Well, since you think you are such a genius, why don't you tell us how it would be done

Don't complain about alleged nonanswers when you haven't given any answer either.

Let's hear it.

[Yavin4]

53. Here's my answer

Bernie supporters have criticized both Obama and Hillary for not pushing hard enough for a liberal agenda and going for half measures. Bernie's entire appeal is that he's authentic and will fight without compromise.

My question, which still has not been completely answered, was asked to get an idea of how Bernie can get things done in a style different from Obama or Ciinton. The best response that I got is that he's going to bring this left of center senate with him, but there's no detailed plan about how that will be accomplished.

In the end, if Bernie cannot get a SCOTUS nominee through congress, how is going to get free college and single payer healthcare through.

[hobbit709]

54. did you take answering lessons from Sarah Palin?

Semantically that's a null set.

[treestar]

113. Still no answer to the question

[hobbit709]

118. So instead of answering our questions you just toss in your 2 cents worth.

Our question was how was how could ANYONE get a liberal left of center nominee past the current makeup of the Senate.
You have no more of an answer than you accuse the Bernie supporters of not having.
Instead of an answer from you, you try to turn it around and then go hide in Camp Bansalot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110747100

[treestar]

119. not very civil

I answered the question upthread as it pertains to Hillary.

It is Bernie who is making the claims, so why can't the question be answered as to him? It does not look good to resort to ad hominem, tu quoque and other fallacies. Always makes it look like there is no good answer.

[hobbit709]

121. Neither was this whole OP and all the others like it.

Considering Hillary is to the right of Obama and he's somewhat right of center, she would never nominate a moderate. And the current Senate would be automatically against ANYONE she would nominate unless they were as bad as Scalia.

[treestar]

122. So that would happen to bernie too

and he'd have to pick a moderate in order to get the seat filled.

[hobbit709]

123. the RW idea of a moderate is anyone to the left of Temujin.

Mine is a little different.

And the OP title doesn't mention "moderate"

[earthshine]

82. What answer? At this point, this is sheer trolling. nt

[treestar]

114. because you can't answer the question

because you know full well that Bernie has not lifted a finger so far, that these same voters stay home, that the Dems running are not pure enough for them and because the coattails argument is magical thinking.

[Goblinmonger]

134. He's made it pretty clear what his plan is

and nowhere did I ever hear him say he won't compromise along the way.

He wants to start a political revolution. People that don't vote need to get out and vote and make what they want clear. As this happens, the people in Congress will represent those wants. They will work on making those wants fulfilled.

It isn't about getting single payer in the first year. Nobody thinks this will happen except for Clinton supporters that want to get people to vote for Clinton. It is about actually moving toward single payer. It is about holding those responsible for not voting for it and making it happen.

Something needs to be done. Sanders is going to move toward that. Is Clinton, or is she more of the same? If she is, how is she going to get it done any better than Sanders? Factor into that answer that Sanders is appealing to those that normally don't vote at incredibly higher numbers than Clinton. She, for some reason, doesn't make them feel like anything will be different with her.

[Duckhunter935]

66. care to delete your post in the protected group now

That it has been proven to be false

[ebayfool]

67. Bwahaha! Perfect! n/t

[treestar]

110. +1

Nothing but Bernie's magical coattails. Some of these dreamers probably will vote for Bernie only and forget to even press a lever for the down ballot candidates! Or as someone said above, find them to be "corporate Dems" who are not pure enough!

[thesquanderer]

138. re: "there's been nothing about this plan to bring in an entirely new senate. "

It's about turnout.

So then the question is whether you think Hillary or Bernie will have the potential to increase voter turnout on the Dem's behalf, particularly in states that are not already solidly blue. Because that's the candidate that gives you the best chance to flip the Senate. People who vote for the Dem for President are likely to vote (where applicable) for the Dem for Senate... they WANT their candidate to be able to actually do things, they're not likely to vote to make it harder for him/her.

Sanders polls much better than Clinton does among independent voters... those are the voters you need for this. Those are the ones that potentially get you the purple states.

And if the Senate doesn't flip in 2016, which of the two of them has the better potential to keep their supporters motivated in off-year elections, so we get more opportunity for that flip? The Sanders' approach is all about building a movement. That doesn't mean it necessarily happens overnight. If he's successful in building on what he is doing, he and his supporters could continue to improve Congress in 2018, 2020, and 2022.

This very much gets back to our conversation at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511150878

One candidate is at least *trying* to make big, substantial changes. It may not all happen right away, but it's better to take a step in that direction than to do nothing at all. If you're going to wait until there's a 100% guarantee of success, you'll wait forever.

[LWolf]

147. That's not the answer I gave you.

You know. The one you didn't respond to, because it didn't fit the picture you have failed to draw.

[berniepdx420]

52. Fight fight fight... we have to stop being such pansies... no offense to pansies

[Kalidurga]

56. The same way Hillary will only a more liberal nominee.

[quantass]

59. Couldnt Bernie issue an Executive Order and appoint Justice WHEN congress deliberately delays? nt

[onenote]

68. Not. Going.To. Happen.

If the Democrats control the Senate and the repubs filibuster, the Democrats will "go nuclear" and end the filibuster.

But if the repubs control the Senate and simply vote down Sanders' nominees, there's nothing that can be done about it unless and until the repubs feel enough political pressure that they have to confirm someone.

[Fearless]

78. The same way Obama did and every Democrat before it.

[betsuni]

79. I'm beginning to think this should be a certain campaign's theme song:

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

83. Another example of living in the Hillary bubble

From most to least likely to get a confirmation

Obama - yep, most likely
Sanders
Clinton - they hate Hillary
Trump - only because Rs won't win, otherwise Trump is #2 and Clinton #3
Rubio, Cruz - as funny as Clinton getting a confirmation

But that's OK. 4-4 makes the SCOTUS more liberal than it was as lower courts will break ties.

Hillary may get elected, but listening to her and her supporters talk about doing what's achievable is as absurd as your claim of Bernie appealing to idealistic goals.

[daleanime]

84. How would Hillary.....

get anybody though?

[AgingAmerican]

86. Dont need the senate

Recess appointment

[Duckhunter935]

92. won't happen as the Senate does not go into recess

[LWolf]

149. Really?

http://grprofessionals.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2016-Senate-Schedule.pdf

[Bohemianwriter]

87. By getting more real liberals in the Senate? n/t

[cali]

88. Either candidate will struggle with this if the composition of

the Senate remains unchanged.

[Vinca]

95. I'm puzzled why people think Hillary's lot in life would be so much easier than Bernie's if elected.

There is only one way the GOP will "go along" with Hillary: if she does what Bill did and signs THEIR legislation.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. As mechanism for promoting one candidate over the other, your question fails in that you neglect

to describe the aspects of your candidate which will allow such confirmations to proceed more effectively than they would under the candidate you oppose. As it is, your question is applicable not only to both candidates but to the current President of the United States.

So make the case for your candidate, then ask for others to do the same. Without the case for your candidate the question as you ask it is bait, not inquiry. A lack of good will will not cover for a lack of good ideas.

[Yavin4]

116. If you're vote is pro-Bernie, you should be happy to explain how he would get things done.

The central theme of his campaign is big new programs and doing things differently from the past. My question gives his supporters a chance to show how he would accomplish these big initiatives by doing it with a SCOTUS nominee. If he cannot get a nominee through the Senate, then how is he going to deliver Single Payer and Free College education?

If you're going to change the makeup of the Senate, then how is he going to get more Liberal senators elected in states like ND, AZ, GA, SC, Idaho, etc.

Asking how Hillary would do it, avoids the question and convinces no one to vote for Bernie.

[shawn703]

155. Why do you fail to mention the states where the Democrat is likely to win?

You don't list Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Plus we will get Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina and maybe even Missouri with Bernie at the top of the ticket. More than enough to get a left of center pick through the Senate.

[Bettie]

98. He'll get one through by

refusing to back down and waiting them out.

I'm trying to figure out though, what your point is here.

Is it:

A. Clinton will have more success working with Congress? They will be somehow inclined to work with her based on the respectful and helpful attitude they've shown so far towards her? (I have not seen this, but hey, maybe I've missed it among the many Benghazi hearings.)

B. That she will nominate someone who is palatable to the current Right Wing lunatics running the asylum?

Anyone elected with a D after their name will have an uphill battle unless the makeup of congress changes significantly. I have no illusions that either of our candidates would have Republican support on anything.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Presidenting is busy work, how will Bernie find time for lunch?

nt

[HooptieWagon]

101. Huh? 34 Senate seats are up for election.

The Senate will be slightly changed if Bernie is elected. OP is comparing apples and oranges...it's like asking how LBJ could get civil rights legislation passed through the 1860 Congress.

[LWolf]

104. He won't.

He'll get his nominees through the Senate that is in place after the election.

That said, he's got a great record working to get things done.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you


I think what his colleagues have to say about his work ethics answers your question:

3)
Senator Richard Burr — Republican, North Carolina

“[Sanders is] one who’s willing to sit down and compromise and negotiate to get to a final product.”
* *

4)
Senator Roger Wicker — Republican, Mississippi

“I learned early on not to be automatically dismissive of a Bernie Sanders initiative or amendment… He’s tenacious and dogged and he has determination, and he’s not to be underestimated.”
* *

5)
Senator Sherrod Brown — Democrat, Ohio

“[Sanders] would call them ‘tripartite amendments’ because we’d have him and he’d get a Republican, he’d get a Democrat and he’d pass things.

He’s good at building coalitions.”
* *

6)
Senator John Mccain — Republican, Arizona

“[While working on the Veterans Affairs legislation], I found him to be honorable and good as his word.”
* *

7)
Senator Chuck Schumer — Democrat, New York

“He knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, I think, maximized what we could get for veterans.”
* *

8)
Senator Jack Reed — Democratic, Rhode Island (again)

“Frankly, without him, I don’t think we would have gotten [the Veterans Affairs legislation] done…

It was a great testament to his skill as a legislator.”
* *

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/10/1482833/-8-Quotes-From-Congress-About-Bernie-Sanders

[KingFlorez]

111. If he was elected, his nominee would be similar to one Hillary would nominate

When it comes down to it Sanders would end up being a lot more pragmatic than his supporters think.

[Yavin4]

115. Exactly because that's how the system is set up.

The fundamental flaw in Sander's whole approach is the belief that the campaign funding system and Wall Street are the primary inhibitors to progressive reforms. That is simply not true. Even if those things did not exist, you will have as much resistance, if not more, to progressive reforms given the makeup of the country and the congress.

IOW, South Dakota is not going to elect a Liberal to the Senate because Wall Street banks have been broken up.

[Voice for Peace]

137. I am still hoping for an answer to my own question

to Hilary supporters, maybe you can help.

My question is:

Explain how it's acceptable for her and her surrogates to deceive, distort the truth, in order to manipulate voters?

Thanks. It bewilders me.

[Duckhunter935]

145. like you will get an answer

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

140. A journey of a thousand li begins with one step. Lao Tsu

If they won't budge on the first one, send them another, and another, etc.

[EndElectoral]

141. How will Hillary is the better question?

She is despised by GOP leadership.

[shawn703]

151. Control of the Senate flips if he's the nominee. nt

[cascadiance]

156. Wherever a primary challenge to a corporate Democrat is happening strongly ramp up support for them!

By taking on even corporate Democrats and WINNING those races, it will show the coat tail effect that Bernie will bring come November that will change the landscape come 2017 even more so than just Bernie taking office, and persuade Republicans that perhaps a "left of center" nominee approved being selected by Obama will be someone they can tolerate more than the kind of candidate Bernie will select and a less biased senate towards corporatism approving that nominee then will bring them.

I think here in Oregon we can start by helping Kevin Stine taking on TPP loving and pushing Ron Wyden.

[fredamae]

157. No Dem POTUS will overcome this

problem with congress-unless and until We start seeing the Importance of this election cycle Big. Really BIG.
Clearly-this question (at least for me) is a non-starter because there are Currently, in This election cycle-34 US Senate Seats Up (10 Dems/24 GOP) and All 435 House Seats Up and Several gubernatorial races...state house elections etc.

Think BIG and start vetting All Candidates at All levels of government and Give the Next Dem POTUS a Doable Team!
That's how Bernie (WE, the People) will get it done.

[JDPriestly]

159. Same way he got 60+% of the votes in New Hampshire.

He will be go to the people directly and get them to place enormous pressure on their members of the Senate.

I was out campaigning for Bernie at a community-wide event last night.

Now, you have to understand that I have done a lot of campaigning in my life, tabling, handing out flyers, talking to people, knocking on doors, registering voters, making phone calls, the works.

Bernie is the easiest candidate to campaign for that I have every seen. It's incredible. You say Bernie. They say, "I'm for him." Everybody loves Bernie. Well, all but maybe two or three who like Trump.

That's California. I grant you that. But Bernie had nothing a few months ago, and now he has half of Iowa's votes and a huge majority of Democrats in New Hampshire.

Bernie is the deal right now. It's not going away.

The Senate will rue the day they cross Bernie. Because Bernie's fans will be all over them. So now you have the answer to your question.

Democracy. That's how Bernie will get his nominee approved by the Senate.

[Uponthegears]

164. Ask a direct question, get a direct answer

With MILLIONS of new voters drawn to the polls by his candidacy (and considering that 2016 provides a mathematical advantage vis a vis contested races for seats presently held by Republicans anyway) Bernie will have at least a simple majority in the Senate.

A simple majority can change the Senate rules to prevent filibuster of even Supreme Court nominees. This was not done by Harry Reid because he determined the risk of the rule change inuring to the benefit of a Republican president outweighed the reward of streamlining the confirmation process to conform to the actual requirements of the Constitution.

HOWEVER, the prospect of radically changing the direction of this country by the appointment of a justice who will form a majority of justices willing to faithfully adhere to the ideals of the Founding Fathers as reflected in the Constitution of the United States increases the REWARD exponentially.

In addition, should Hillary not destroy the Democratic Party by using smoke-filled room politics, i.e., super delegates, to overrule the will of the people, the risk that a Republican will ever hold a national office within any of our lifetimes has been significantly reduced.

There is one caveat . . . the Third Way folks are going to have to get their followers to actually stand behind a Democratic President when he pushes for Democratic values. Do you think you all can pull that off?

[cherokeeprogressive]

166. The same fucking way Hillary Clinton would.

[INdemo]

171. I can answer...It wont be this Senate

When Bernie wins he will take with him coat tail winning Senators (part of the Revolution) and retake the Senate so Democrats will have a Majority

2nd : He will also take with him to Washington a strong group of progressives that will see the Republican House dwindling down to nearly a 50-50 split and in 2018 we will have a Majority in the House also..Not sure Pelosi wil be part of that revolution because she has been Republicanised and will probably will be Replaced

[MohRokTah]

175. He CANNOT get ANY nominee through THIS Senate, neither can Hillary.

Neither of them, if elected president, would present any nominee to THIS Senate.

Their nominees will be confirmed in the next Senate for two years, then in the 116th Senate for two more years.

Regardless of which one becomes president, this Senate will be history before they do so.

[noretreatnosurrender]

177. Here's My Answer

I don't know exactly how the entire process will work (no one can see into the future) but I do know how it will start - He will actually nominate one. Hillary will not. If you want a left of center nominee the first step is to elect a candidate who will nominate one and fight like hell to get them confirmed. I know I will be working like hell to help him in any way I can.

[99Forever]

179. If elected, President Sanders won't have THIS SENATE.

Perhaps some American Civics classes would clear up your misunderstanding of how our government actually operates.

Hard to take seriously someone that doesn't know the most basic facts.

[krawhitham]

188. With little to no problem

Assuming he wins we get a Political Revolution

The Political Revolution is not about one man or one office it is about all the people rising up and voting for candidates across the board that believe we change/fix the system.

24 Senate seats held by Republicans that are up for election in 2016, the Political Revolution for force most of this ass hats out of office


Question is how would Hillary get it done, all she is promising is more of the same. More of the same means most of the 24 senators will be back for another 6 years.

The ONLY WAY we can get a left of center SCOTUS nominee through this senate is through a Political Revolution