Sanders Will Need 60 Votes To Pass Anything. But Hillary Clinton Will ONLY NEED 60.

[Segami]

Chris Matthews seemed to be stuck in Marco Rubio-style robotic warp mode last night during his interview with Bernie Sanders. Matthews kept repeating:

“You need 60! You need 60! But how are you going to get to 60?”

I think Matthews’ point was that Hillary Clinton will only need 60 votes to get any legislation passed in the Senate. Unlike Sanders who will need 60 votes.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/26/1491943/-Sanders-will-need-60-votes-to-pass-anything-But-Clinton-will-only-need-60

......

[UglyGreed]

1. That really did

make me laugh out loud thanks!!!!!

[oldandhappy]

2. giggle

Thanks for the post.

[seaotter]

3. Hillary can "triangulate" at least 10 votes, right?

[Ferd Berfel]

71. yes because Republican always want to work WITH her...

[merrily]

87. Why wouldn't they? She called them the enemy of which she is most proud.

And she blamed a vast right wing conspiracy for "lying" about her husband and Monica. And showed such respect in the United States House of Representatives. Why wouldn't they be dying to help make her look good in office?

[Juicy_Bellows]

99. Benghazi was a shit show but her carrying of herself was unprofessional.

You've provided exhibits A-C.

[merrily]

102. I watched for about two hours. She was that way the entire time I watched. Her

contingent is so proud of that that they use it as their avatar. I thought it immaturity on steroids, especially for someone who wants to be President and start working with those people come January. And, no matter how many times I read that she came through with flying colors, that was not what I saw. In the two hours I watched, quite a few times, they read the record back to her and her answers had been inconsistent with each other. Does it amount to a hill of beans? I don't know. However, if I were sitting on a jury, and she were a witness, I would have had doubts. On the flip side, if Congress had called me to testify and I acted that way, I would have expected to be cited for contempt.

[Juicy_Bellows]

103. Well said, and you would probably be cited for contempt.

Also, couldn't agree more with the avatar comment - let's post someone we supposedly admire in one of their worst forms?

What?

[merrily]

104. They're obviously proud she was disrespectful. Yet they will post she will get

things done where Bernie won't. That is contrary to both their records in Congress and also contrary to her being deliberately, unnecessarily disrespectful to people whose cooperation she hopes to get.

[Juicy_Bellows]

107. If elected, the things she'll get done is what I worry about.

Cheers!

[merrily]

108. The only things she will get done are the things Republicans want done anyway--and

maybe not even those. Husband Bill: NAFTA, begun by Poppy, ending "welfare as we know it," repeal of Glass Steagall, Commodities Futures Modernization Act (permitting unregulated sale of mortgage derivatives), DOMA, Telecommunications Act, etc.

Have a good night.

[Ferd Berfel]

118. Correct - Beat me to it.

...only the things that republicans would have done anyway. Just like Bill and TPP, and the Republican Healthcare reform plan, and Drone bombing civilians and ... damn missed on crushing Social Security. Had it on the chopping block though. ONly missed it be that much.....

[Ferd Berfel]

116. Of Course she will get more done than Bernie. HE has to get 60 of them to come alone

where as She only needs 60 !

[Gary 50]

123. 100 Percent Bernie supporter here in defense of Hillary.

The vast right wing conspiracy was real and was all about bringing down the Clintons, the truth be damned. They were vicious and unrelenting in their attempts to find or create scandal. So they struck gold with Monica. Who cares about Clintons sex life? I didn't and don't. She stood by her man, for whatever reason. Good for her.
As to her performance at the torture hearings, where the idea was to wear her down with endless hours of badgering, she acquitted herself quite well. Tough old bird.
As to her working with the Republicans better than Bernie would I have to give her the edge. Not because they like her any better ( hard to say who they would hate more). But because she is so much closer to them politically and will be willing to, no eager to, get things done. Things that will thrill Republicans and make our side cringe.

[questionseverything]

127. Things that will thrill Republicans and make our side cringe.

^^^^

exactly

we need bernie!

[merrily]

131. Whom you support does not affect the accuracy of your answer.

Either the content of your post stands on its own or it doesn't. I have no clue why people feel they have to preface a post with that. I post a lot and, offhand, I can't remember a time when I felt a need to do that. Of course, I guess my avatar and sig line relieve me of that, as do my many posts in support of Bernie. Anyway...

Hillary used the term "vast right wing conspiracy," on a very specific occasion, so specific it has its own wiki. I described it correctly in my post--and she was 100% wrong on the facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy

As far as whether or not the Clintons cause their own problems, I get alerted on just about every time I explain my thoughts, no matter how strictly factual I keep my statements and no matter how many links to credible sources I use to support my factual statements. No hides have resulted so far, but I am not going to risk it right now. And, there are just so many times I am up for doing all that work, just to reply to an unsupported opinion, such as given in your post. Let's just say, I think there are more than two ways to look at the facts, even just the ones in this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal

I do think cheating on a spouse without the knowledge of the spouse is relevant to character and personality, trustworthiness of a President, to how he might treat an oath, such as the oath of office or an oath to tell the truth, and other matters. So is reckless behavior. I know most Democrats say otherwise, but you know what they say about opinions: everyone has one.

I also do care that a President was getting a bj while on the phone with another head of state. I also care that a President, whose duty it is to execute laws faithfully, and an attorney, lied under oath to a grand jury. And I care how he treated women who worked for him, even apart from the physical bits.

As to her working with the Republicans better than Bernie would I have to give her the edge. Not because they like her any better ( hard to say who they would hate more).

Actually, no, it's not all that hard if you research some, even just search DU. Republicans have worked with Bernie to get important legislation passed, to the extent that it became a case study in the Brookings Institute on how to work across the aisle. No such thing happened with Hillary. Bernie's also gotten a lot of important amendments he wrote passed into law. Hillary had no such success, even on her two attempts to pass an unconstitutional flag burning statute, something Republicans themselves introduce just about every session.

There is also an article online and posted in DU in which a number of Republicans say how much they like working with him, even though they disagree with him, because he is honest and they know where he stands. I would post links, but, again, I've done that so many times, I'm over it. Also, he hasn't gone out of his way to bad mouth them or disrespect them for two generations in an immature way because he imagines it plays well in Peoria. He criticizes them on issues, yes, but they do the same to Democrats; and they expect it.

Not because they like her any better ( hard to say who they would hate more). But because she is so much closer to them politically and will be willing to, no eager to, get things done. Things that will thrill Republicans and make our side cringe.

There, we agree. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1349384

[Gary 50]

150. Thanks for the lecture. If I feel like stating I support Bernie before I defend Clinton it has

nothing to do with the content of my post standing on its own. I just wanted you to know my defense of Hillary was coming from a Bernie Sanders supporter. Not that hard to figure out. I hope that helps and you are no longer clueless. As to your Wikipedia article if you read several paragraphs into it the vast right wing conspiracy was about a lot more than her husbands sex life. It was a coordinated multi million dollar conspiracy to destroy the Clintons in any way possible. As far as who congress would work with better you seem to have completely missed my point. Hillary would get more done because she would want to do things that republicans want to do. Very little of Bernie's agenda coincides with the republican agenda. I'm sorry I don't share your hatred for Hill. I just dislike her.

[greymouse]

128. that middle video with the smirk

I hate that.

[Nitram]

121. Good point, sea otter.

That's the way democracy works. If it's all "my way or the highway", than it is usually the highway. The art of compromise its required to pass legislation unless you have a super-majority in both houses. One problem with the right wing his they refused to compromise with Obama.

[seaotter]

122. They will , of course, extend that same good will to Hillary.

[Nitram]

126. Not if she breaks the Bernie supporter rule and compromises with a few Republicans to win a vote.

My comment is in reply to "Hillary can "triangulate" at least 10 votes, right?" above, as if compromise is a bad thing. The naivete of some Bernie supporters boggles the mind.

[seaotter]

130. Obama has been more than open to compromise , what makes you..

think Hillary, or anyone else for that matter, could do better? Seems like delusion . It's all about turnover in congress, I happen to believe the potential for " coat tails " in this election and in '18 are greater with a visionary like Bernie in the lead. Hillary's candidacy is one for the status quo. She seems unable to spark the enthusiasm needed to bring about such change.

[Nitram]

133. I was responding to a post that suggested that Clinton might reach an agreement but would...

...<gasp> be willing to "triangulate" to get 10 more votes from across the aisle. Don't change the subject, seaotter, my comment is in response to a specific post.

[seaotter]

134. Deflect much?

[Nitram]

138. I'm deflecting because I responded to one post and now you want me to respond to a different one?

You are a bit pushy aren't you? Congrats!

[seaotter]

135. Willing, yes. But able? I don't think so.

[Nitram]

139. That's true. You don't "think" so. nt

[seaotter]

140. There is certainly no reason one should " think so"

[trillion]

88. change it, before it's flagged. I wouldn't flag it but as we've found there are people here

that are well, you know.

[UglyGreed]

5. Tweety last night while interrogating Bernie

[cui bono]

22. And AFTER interrogating Sanders...

.

[cui bono]

23. Sanders declares Victory!!!

.

[Segami]

28. Thats great.....hopefully

those are washable and not permanent colors.......

[Segami]

24. ROFL....

[cui bono]

26. Did you see the victory one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1347850

.

[UglyGreed]

39. Wonderful

I like the victory pic also!!!!

[PoliticAverse]

6. Anytime the majority wants to they can end the need for 60 votes. n/r

[Maedhros]

20. Yes - that artificial roadblock is just there to provide cover for do-nothing politicians

who don't want to fight for what's right.

[GoneFishin]

82. +100gabillion%.

[merrily]

97. There is a theory that it can be done only at the start of a new session or some such.

I don't recall all the ins and outs. However, it should be changed.

[PoliticAverse]

98. I used to believe the "only at beginning" theory then Harry Reid used the threat...

of the "nuclear option" to get Republicans to stop blocking Obama appointments
and made it apparent the rule could be changed at any time.

[merrily]

145. Maybe not. I don't recall all the details of that change.

Maybe no one filibustered or he had enough votes to end one?

I should have elaborated. They can change any rule at any time if no one filibusters or if they have the 3/5 vote needed to end a filibuster. The theory is you can do it at the start of a new session with only 51 votes of Senators, or votes of 50 Senators and the VP. Again, I am not sure why. Maybe no one can filibuster a rule change at the start of a new session?

[jwirr]

142. Harry Reid was afraid to change it but I am not sure. We

lived with a 50 vote majority for most of my life. Not sure of the history of this 60 vote issue.

[merrily]

144. 50+1 is still a majority. The "super majority" is needed only to end a filibuster.

It started in 1917, with a 2/3 requirement, but there were fewer states then. They lowered the requirement to 3/5 in the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

Filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went on for, IIRC, 83 calendar days.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons the super majority is needed more often now:

1. There seems to be less regard for the country and more for playing to the base.

2. There is no more requirement that Senators actually stand there and yammer. They just have to basically give notice of a filibuster and they're done. (Heaven forbid we demand that a Senator get tired while screwing up the country.)

More at the link above and at http://www.thenation.com/article/filibuster-faq-fact-fiction-and-why-we-need-reform/

BTW, karynnj has a very good grasp of Senate rules, as I recall.

[jwirr]

146. Thank you. Old enough to remember a few real filibusters.

No matter what side you were on it was interesting to listen to them. That is one more thing I would like to see us get back again.

[merrily]

147. Again, Bernie did it! I think it was 8 hours. He published it as a book.

[jwirr]

148. I watched him and was so proud of him.

[jwirr]

142. Harry Reid was afraid to change it but I am not sure. We

lived with a 50 vote majority for most of my life. Not sure of the history of this 60 vote issue.

[Cassiopeia]

7. Well to be fair Hillary will get the 60 votes.

They're easy to come by when you're fighting for Republican and corporate goals.

[lostnfound]

16. Yep. Absolutely right.

How many compromises and in what areas will each one do?

[datguy_6]

17. +1

[hifiguy]

51. Blammo.

Just like the Repigs lurrrrrve Obama pushing the TPP.

[DiehardLiberal]

61. Because she's 'pragmatic'

Read 'sell-out'.

[trillion]

90. +10000

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. This is not accurate. 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster, passing is done with a simple

majority.

If the Senate remains in Republican hands, neither possible president will pass anything. The Senate may actually refuse to have hearings on Supreme Court Justices, and they have a history of refusing to approve other justices. They also have advise and Consent of Cabinet posts, so it is likely that anyone they consider too liberal will never get approved.

If Democrats have less than 60 votes, Republicans can continue to block anything of substance.

Of course, if Republicans retain control of the House, the House will stop everything.

I do not expect much to happen before 2020 if either Candidate winds White House. Only if Democrats show up at all elections and elect Democrats to State offices and the Congress do we see any real change.

[datguy_6]

19. Technically you need 60 to end the debate (cloture) in order to vote on passage

[Agnosticsherbet]

21. Thanks, that puts it all together.

My frustrations is when people in the media over simplify the process for an agenda.

[DefenseLawyer]

9. Of course I recall the last time we had 60 votes in the Senate

We didn't get shit done then either. Oh wait, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman don't count. We're still a couple short! It's all a charade.

[Kall]

14. Hey, c'mon.

You got the Republican Health Care Plan from 1992, which not surprisingly has been underwater in public opinion since Day One.

[rhett o rick]

11. I can't believe the logic or lack of such that some have that argue that Clinton will be able

to get more done with a Republicon Congress. One shouldn't even have to think about that. It's not a good thing that Clinton sees eye to eye on lots of major issues. Sure she might get stuff done, but to the detriment of the 99%.

[cui bono]

13. Except as we have seen with Obama, if you offer them their own policy they STILL won't pass it.

And that only makes them move further into batshit crazyland.

Enough of that. Time for us to demand MORE than what we want too.

.

[Segami]

15. Detriment is putting it mildly....

It's the secret deals behind closed doors that will follow them into the WH......Like deals to push for Medicare cuts.

[cui bono]

12. !!!

Sounds like a lot of Hillary supporters on here.

.

[FangedNoumenom]

18. Hillary is anathema to the GOP

Do her supporters actually expect her to get anything done? You know, besides more wars, more illegal coups, etc...

[Uncle Joe]

25. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

[wyldwolf]

27. Sanders, being quite unpopular in the Senate, would have a harder time getting 60

Endorsements matter.

[Matariki]

33. What is this? Mean Girl Friday?

You're making stuff up.

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

[wyldwolf]

35. what part am I making up?

[Matariki]

42. Which part aren't you making up?

Senator Jeff Sessions — Republican, Alabama
"I’ve always respected Bernie and we’ve gotten along personally well."

Senator Jack Reed — Democrat, Rhode Island
"a gentleman, thoughtful, a leader… If you want to have a pleasant discussion on not only policy issues but just issues of the day, he’s a pleasant guy."

Senator Richard Burr — Republican, North Carolina
"one who’s willing to sit down and compromise and negotiate to get to a final product."

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."


Senator Sherrod Brown — Democrat, Ohio
"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."


Senator John Mccain — Republican, Arizona
"I found him to be honorable and good as his word."


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."


Senator Jack Reed — Democratic, Rhode Island (again)
"Frankly, without him, I don’t think we would have gotten done…

It was a great testament to his skill as a legislator."

[wyldwolf]

46. Every Democrat you listed has endorsed Hillary

So you're thinking the GOPers you listed will back Bernie on free college and health care?

[Matariki]

50. So what? I'm sure they need to stay on the right side of DWS

But she'll be gone soon enough.

And as if Clinton is going to have an easier time w/ Republicans. Except when she's giving away money to big banks, deals to weapons manufacturers, contracts to the private prison industry, land to fracking companies, and deregulation to big business.

[Kelvin Mace]

56. So, automatically if a Dem endorses HRC

they will never vote for a policy put forth by President Sanders, and will instead side with the GOP?

Wow.

[cui bono]

94. Stay on topic. You said he was "quite unpopular in the Senate".

No one was talking about endorsements.

And the GOP hates Hillary more than anyone so good luck with that.

Have you guys not learned yet that using the rofl smiley does NOT make you win an argument?

.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. I would guess he would have trouble getting the same votes HRC would

or are you claiming that Dems won't back him and will side with the GOP?

Of course that is not without president, being yet another reason to not simply vote for someone because they have a "D" after their name.

[wyldwolf]

36. doubtful

There are the much maligned moderate dems that would cast their votes in the Senate for Clinton and not Sanders.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. So, those "moderates", like HRC herself,

would side with the GOP?

[MelissaB]

49. Yeah. I didn't think you'd get an answer on that one.

[wyldwolf]

60. no, they'd side with Hillary

[Kelvin Mace]

73. Ummm, no

The issue being discussed aws how getting 60 votes would be any different under HRC as opposed to Sanders. Your view is that he is disliked and could not get Dem votes, meaning the Dems would side with the GOP. You then claim that HRC would get moderate votes, and Sanders would not, again meaning that moderate Dems would vote against Sanders and side with the GOP.

You then change the conditions of the question and make HRC president to support your answer.

Thanks for playing.

[wyldwolf]

74. Ummm, yes

The issue being discussed is how getting 60 votes would be any different under HRC as opposed to Sanders. My view is that he is disliked and his proposals are pie in the sky fantasy. Dem Senators from red states would vote for them. Hillary knows how to compromise to get something from nothing. You claim that Bernie would get Republican votes, through magic fairy dust, I suppose.

You then change the conditions of the question and make Bernie president to support your answer.

Thanks for playing.

[Kelvin Mace]

76. Dem sentaors would or would not vote for Sanders proposals?

Answer the question please. If they refuse, they are siding with the GOP. If they do vote for Sanders proposal, then what's the problem?

Now, as to the GOP, well, if they were snowballs, Hell would be ten degrees cooler for Sanders, but neither would get a single GOP vote.

[wyldwolf]

77. Not red state ones

Obama had a hard enough time getting red state dem votes for the ACA.

Not a chance they'd vote for straight up socialism.

[Kelvin Mace]

79. So, they Dems would side with the GOP

Got it.

[wyldwolf]

81. some almost did during the ACA. So, yeah. And glad you got it.

[Kelvin Mace]

91. So moderates will betray you.

Got it.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

112. Sanders will tell them to "cut it out" and they will "fall in line"

is that not how it works?

[mikehiggins]

37. Have a lot of the GOPuke majority endorsed HRC? I hadn't noticed.

The only reason HRC would get GOPuke support to reach 60 Senatorial votes is if she went into the back room and "compromised" away things like Social Security or Medicare. Do any of the Hillary fans have any problem with that?

[wyldwolf]

40. Exactly

Hillary will compromise for the sake of progress. Bernie would settle for nothing.

[Segami]

45. Hillary's compromise only means seeing this dick again....

[wyldwolf]

57. Bernie's non-compromise only means seeing this legislatively

[jillan]

55. And everybody just loooooves Hillary.

Just look at her favorable ratings!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html


42.2Favorable 51.4Unfavorable

[wyldwolf]

58. they polled Senators?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016#Current_3

Tammy Baldwin, WI[31]
Michael Bennet, CO[31]
Richard Blumenthal, CT[31]
Cory Booker, NJ[31]
Barbara Boxer, CA[31]
Sherrod Brown, OH[31]
Maria Cantwell, WA[31]
Ben Cardin, MD[31]
Tom Carper, DE[31]
Bob Casey, Jr., PA[31]
Chris Coons, DE[31]
Joe Donnelly,IN[31]
Dick Durbin, Min. Whip, IL[31]
Dianne Feinstein, CA[31]
Al Franken, MN[31]
Kirsten Gillibrand, NY[31]
Martin Heinrich, NM[31]
Heidi Heitkamp, ND[31]
Mazie Hirono, HI[31]
Tim Kaine, VA[31]
Amy Klobuchar, MN[31]
Patrick Leahy, VT[31]
Joe Manchin, WV[31]
Ed Markey, MA[31]
Claire McCaskill, MO[31]
Barbara Mikulski, MD[31]
Chris Murphy, CT[31]
Patty Murray, WA[31]
Bill Nelson, FL[31]
Gary Peters, MI[31]
Jack Reed, RI[31]
Harry Reid, Min. Leader, NV[31]
Brian Schatz, HI[31]
Chuck Schumer, NY[31]
Jeanne Shaheen, NH[31]
Debbie Stabenow, MI[31]
Tom Udall, NM[31]
Mark Warner, VA[31]
Sheldon Whitehouse, RI[31]
Ron Wyden, OR[31]

[lumberjack_jeff]

141. I count 40

And I dispute the idea that a president who takes office with a 29% favorability rating will have better luck gathering those other 20.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/

[Loudestlib]

63. Sanders has gotten 60 votes in the Senate before. Has Hillary?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

124. Are you saying Democrats won't vote for Sander's programs.

What happened to the Party Loyalty thing?

[AtheistCrusader]

132. So, you're telling me Democrats will roll against Sanders because he's Sanders?

But they'll go for Hillary because she's Hillary?


What a crock of shit.

Hillary will 'get more done' in the Senate because she's more amenable to things Republicans like. TPP, for starters.

[noretreatnosurrender]

29. Very Funny Post

[Fairgo]

30. Yay numbers!

They mean more when you say them loud!

PS I want to see more babies with moustaches please.

[Matariki]

31. LOL!

I was thinking exactly the same thing when I heard that clip.

[monicaangela]

32. Could Matthews possibly

be saying Hillary has money to buy politicians and you don't. So how are you going to get them to vote for your policies? I wonder...

[Jefferson23]

41. It was very funny..ha ha. Bobblehead political commentators. n/t

[Karma13612]

43. Love it!

Must be that "new math" all the young kids keep talking about.

[libtodeath]

44. Plus her health insurance plans hinge on cooperation from repuke state governors.

[treestar]

47. So the issue favors neither side

Neither will get their agenda passed. Either is a safety valve to veto Republican bad ideas.

[hifiguy]

48. Doublethink, doublespeak, Newspeak.

Hey Tweety, 1984 was not a fucking instruction manual, you goddam crooked, ethics-free dunce.

[Amimnoch]

52. Well, she already has 39 to his 0.

Really, the man who's worked decades in Congress can't even get endorsements of his long time co-workers, but he's going to get that wish list passed?

How is that again?

[Chicago1980]

53. I hope people are looking at down ticket candidates like senators and congresspersons.

It may be harder to flip the house because so many people DIDN'T vote in 2010 when redistricting happened.

That chamber may be lost until 2020, but anything is possible.

[senz]

54. It's tough. They hate her yet share her values. They like Bernie but

haven't heard his values since Sunday school and Civics class.

[Billsmile]

59. When Obama Had A Filibuster Proof Congress....

He, backed by the rest of the Democratic party, could have gone full throttle and passed the equivalent all of Sanders' current proposals.


He didn't, they didn't. They could have if they wanted to.

[Jester Messiah]

65. Except the 3rd way types were there to stop him.

Max Baucus, Claire McCaskill and their ilk, wholly owned by the health "care" industry, made sure their masters' revenue streams kept flowing.

[Billsmile]

67. Correct!

Plus Obama didn't keep the people's movement going to force such changes (I think Bill Press is writing a book about this).

[Mbrow]

62. K&R

thanks for that

[Enthusiast]

64. Tweety.

[zentrum]

66. Very funny!

It's amazing how many more of the same exact number of votes Sanders will need compared to Hillary.

But of course Tweety's subtext here is that he knows Miss 3rd Way will triangulate. He knows she won't propose any bills that are anything like her sudden campaign promises. A corporate candidate really can count on the other side because what's the different between them?

[lobodons]

68. 60 will be much easier than 60

60 from a DINO will be much easier than 60 from a Commie. (Fox and the GOP will have branded Bernie as a Commie since being a Socialist is no longer seen as bad as it used to be.)

[Carlo Marx]

69. The real issue is cabinet and regulatory agency appointments.

Clinton is the most polarizing figure in politics, so she'll be just as ineffective as Obama with the Republican sociopaths in congress.
Do we want Larry Summers, Christy Romer, or another Goldman Sachs running the treasury--or Stephanie Kelton, Robert Reich, or Joseph Stiglitz? What about attorney general? Eric Holder/Janet Reno or someone willing to do their job, unleashed by a President Sanders.

[erlewyne]

70. I refuse to watch Chris Matthews.

I knew that DU would fill me in. My wife is furious that I will not watch TV.

She told me what a great job Bernie did after continually being interrupted
by Chris who would blather on and not give Bernie time to answer the
stupid questions about 60 votes. Bernie was not intimidated and would,
in reply, kick Chris' ass.

MSNBC does not need my viewership ... I am not even close to the 1%.
My dear wife (boss!!!) thinks she is ... but she is "Bernie all the way, forever".

[Jenny_92808]

93. I stopped watching

Chris Matthews too.

[NRaleighLiberal]

72. Yep.60 is a much tougher threshold than 60.

Tweety referring to his IQ clearly.

[840high]

78. or the tingles up his leg.

[nikto]

75. Since 60>60, that makes perfect sense

Matthews is so impressive ...

[Vinca]

80. There's a mass delusion that Hillary will wave a magic wand and all the people who have made Obama's

presidency a nightmare of obstruction will suddenly laugh, embrace her and sing Kumbayah. Not in this lifetime . . . unless she signs GOP legislation into law like her husband did.

[Trust Buster]

83. Chris Mathews is merely speaking the unvarnished truth.

Bernie Sanders is traveling from college campus to college campus raising the expectations of young voters with visions of free college, a $15/hr. national minimum wage and Medicare for all. Bernie Sanders is doing so with full knowledge that he won't have 60 votes in the Senate and will be facing a Republican controlled House that won't even allow these issues to be debated on the floor of the House less voted upon. In short, Bernie Sanders is pandering in a very dishonest way. That's just the unvarnished truth.

[merrily]

85. Read the OP again. You clearly missed the point.

[Trust Buster]

86. I missed nothing, Mathews confronted Sanders with the reality of an historicallypolarized Congress.

[merrily]

89. Matthews was as disingenuous as some DUers, pretending it will be any easier for Hillary to get her

small bore stuff done than it will be for Sanders to aim big.

Sanders has been very clear that just electing him will not enable him to get things done. It is part of his stump speech.

On top of being blatantly one-sided, as he always is, Matthews was a rude ass.

Please tell me you're not so partisan as to be dishonest.

[Trust Buster]

92. We must have a different definition of the word "dishonesty".

Dishonesty to me is getting millions of young voters hyped up with promises Sanders knows he couldn't possibly deliver in the next presidential term. Sanders is proposing a far Left agenda. Hillary certainly would stand a better chance of lowering borrowing costs for a college education to the rate by which the government borrows money than Sanders chances of getting Republicans to pass free college tuition. Incidentally, Elizabeth Warren is already on the record supporting Hillary's more realistic goal.

[merrily]

95. No dishonesty on Sanders part: he says over and over that he cannot do it alone.

Dishonesty is being so one sided as to pretend that only Sanders will face a 60 vote requirement.

Dishonesty is calling Sanders dishonest when he explains over and over what it will take to accomplish these things.

Dishonesty is pretending that Republicans will back a Democrat on chicken droppings.

Hillary certainly would stand a better chance of lowering borrowing costs for a college education to the rate by which the government borrows money than Sanders chances of getting Republicans to pass free college tuition.

Only in your dreams.

[Trust Buster]

96. College students hear only that which they choose to hear.

You must think that Elizabeth Warren is also dreaming in her efforts to lower college financing costs. Bernie has a far Left agenda that would be much harder to get through Congress, by definition. That's just common sense.

[merrily]

100. Which college do you go to?

far Left agenda that would be much harder to get through Congress, by definition. That's just common sense.

No, it's not just common sense at all. They've totally blocked Obama. The only thing Hillary will get through, if anything, is stuff Republicans want and Democrats don't want.

Something contrary to the last four years doesn't become common sense simply because you keep repeating it.

BTW, I have no idea why you keep bringing up Warren.

[Trust Buster]

105. College is a couple decades in my rear view mirror.

I worked 8 hours a day in a grocery store for six years to attend night school to satisfy my undergraduate requirements. Bernie has ZERO chance to get free college tuition through a Republican controlled House. There was nothing wrong with Mathews pointing out that reality. This has nothing to do with thinking that Hillary has a magic wand. That is pure deflection.

Most Hillary supporters have made their position quite clear to my observation. Bernie is running farther to the Left of the political spectrum. Those that run farther from the middle risk losing the middle in the general election. That is a historical fact sir. I will not support a candidate whose platform is dead on arrival in Congress thus risking the election when the makeup of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. I will not take on such a risk ( the Supreme Court) when the prospects of return on investment (Bernie's agenda) are so low. NO MAGIC WAND INCLUDED.

[merrily]

106. I guess you can only keep repeating the same things I've answered thrice already. nt

[Trust Buster]

109. I shared my position with you. I have nothing else to add.

[eridani]

113. Given that we used to have free tuition, obviously that could never ever happen again

Sanders has laid out an agenda to fight for. Clinton has not.

[randome]

84. Because Sanders has fewer TIES to CONGRESS.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Blue_In_AK]

101. Heh...

[moondust]

110. Reminds me of CNN in 2000.

First time I wasn't working long hours and got to watch quite a bit of a Presidential campaign. One thing I noticed was that Gore was almost always reported on in negative terms while Bush reporting was almost always in positive or neutral terms or absent altogether. After the election some media studies determined that it was pretty biased coverage.

[Beacool]

111. What I found disturbing was Sanders' response.

When Matthews questioned him about how McConnell would respond to his proposals, he said: "Hey Mitch, take a look out the window. There are a million young people out there who don't want to be in debt for half of their life for the crime of going to college. And if you want to antagonize those million people and if you don't want to lose your job, Mitch, you will listen to what we have to say."

Again with a call for a political revolution. There's zero evidence that this revolution would take place. Besides, let's say Sanders did manage to get a million students to DC, why would a Republican care about a bunch of kids at his window who are not part of his constituency?

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18916/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-chicago-chris-matthews

[eridani]

114. No we can't! No we can't! No we can't!

How inspiring. Not. Obviously people will need to stay involved for anything to happen at all. Sanders has a much better chance of bringing that off than Clinton.

[Beacool]

119. It may not be inspiring, but it's reality.

Despite his very well attended rallies, Democrats are voting in lesser numbers than they did in 2008. If Sanders had such a pull among the young, why weren't his numbers similar to what Obama garnered in 2008? I doubt that if he were elected that the revolution would occur and that millions of people would congregate in Washington. What proof does he have that this would ever happen?

[eridani]

152. Since Clinton doesn't even have the rally attendance--

--what will she do except advocate Republican policies? How does she get people involved past the election?

[Warren DeMontague]

115. Hillary's gonna get the good stuff passed, like, uh, flag burning legislation

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html


maybe a deal with the FBI to make sure noone can encrypt their phones anymore, but as a compromise to people who value "security" iphones can come with one of those little paper bands wrapped around them like they put on hotel toilets.

She will likely be able to speed through approval for big pharma to try and patent whatever aspects of cannabis can be extracted and sold for exhorbitant prices, without that pesky shit of getting people high, making them laugh and think- all the while preserving the most lucrative aspects of the drug war and the private prison system.

Maybe she can even resurrect her husband's brave but ultimately futile crusade for "Online Decency", with another sympathetic (read: none of this pesky "free speech" nonsense) justice on the supreme court, we can finally get the smut off the internet!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

117. Impeachment votes will be the new Obamacare.

[MichaelSoE]

120. Now, that is not only logical but also funny as hell

[nightscanner59]

125. I saw this too, and smelled the oily fumes of corporate media from it.

Matthews made Bill O'Really's early ignorance and bully pulpit look tame with that.
I wanted to fly over to that studio and clock that clown. We so badly need truly left wing control until the hateful elements that have right-wingified our congress so badly meet their demise. Sanders is our only hope of restoring a truly democratic electoral map and undoctored elections.

[LiberalFighter]

129. There is a difference between those 60 votes.

Even if there were 60 Democrats in the Senate there is not a guarantee that all of them can be counted on to vote as one. The legislation created determines the difficulty of passing it.

[kristopher]

136. There you go getting things confused again!

Hillary doesn't need 60 votes to not raise Tweety's taxes and she can won't need more than 50 votes to lower them.

[Smarmie Doofus]

137. LOL. K and R. nt

[DirkGently]

149. I noticed that yawning logic hole as well.

Aiming lower doesn't guarantee success. Hillary Clinton would face the same obstructionist Republicans that Sanders would, with the additional problem being that Republicans consistently imply that she is the Worst Person in The World.

Matthews barking about "show me the votes" or whatever seemed frantic and almost frightened. Things aren't going the way his beltway logic insisted they must go, and it's freaking him out a bit.

Good.

[valerief]

151. Yes, but Hillary has electrolytes. She has what plants crave.