Just imagine, if Dems. should win the Presidency, Senate and House, with Sanders,

[Cal33]

Warren and Grayson holding the top position in each branch respectively. This is
wishful thinking, of course, but if it should happen, I believe most of the national
problems plaguing us now would be solved within 8 years.

[JoePhilly]

1. You will need more than 60 Dems in the Senate ...

... and without those ... President Bernie will have to make some deals to get anything done ... and DU will turn on him in a heart beat.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. Can you repeat that please?

[Cal33]

8. Yes, of course, I meant if Democrats had a free hand. I think most of the major

problems our nation is having are caused by the Republican business corporations.

[Cosmocat]

15. Mostly Rs, but Ds arent' great shakes, either

this president had as much democratic support, numbers wise in the house/senate his first two years, and the best they could muster was a republican version of health care reform. The key dem in the senate was bought and paid for by the insurance industry a decade earlier.

What we have today is one party, completely and uniformly united like no other time in our history and one party that is roughly split into three factions - strong liberals/progressives, moderate democrats and right leaning democrats.

Given that the opposition party will oppose, 100 percent ANY measure proposed by ANY (even Bernie) democrat, he or she actually would need like 75 democratic senators and 300 congressmen to pass any kind of strong progressive legislation.

[Cal33]

18. But with Warren and Grayson as leaders in the Senate and the House, the picture you paint

could be improved quite a bit. I think they would "activate" the slackers.

[Cosmocat]

23. Dude

First, they would need to get into "power" and there are A BOATLOAD of other dems who have been in both chambers a lot longer who are gong to get their shots at leadership before they do.

Further, you greatly, fantastically, over estimate the influence they could have.

All of these cats vote their OWN interests.

Ain't no "activating" them past putting money into their campaign coffers, some other side benefits or in some way helping their reelection chances.

[Cal33]

27. Yes, all these cats do vote their own interests. Slowly, more and more of the population

are beginning to realize that this is happening. But this realization is happening not fast
enough. We've got to vote this kind of politician out of office, and replace them with
real Democrats. It could be too late. Time is not on our side. I can't see giving up
though. I'd keep on fighting.

[Cosmocat]

28. OK - I give up

being the wet blanket.

If the folks in this country gave 1/100th of the shit you give, we'd be in a lot better place.

Peace

[brooklynite]

37. What evidence do you have that Grayson is good at Leadership?

People like him because he makes fiery speeches. I've seen no evidence he can either develop legislation or get people to pass it.

[Cal33]

38. At worst Grayson's leadership ability is an unknown factor. It could go either way. But I do know

that the present leadership could stand a great deal of improvement.

[randys1]

2. Would love that, but I truly believe the deal has been sealed on us for a while now.

Although if your scenario can ever play out it means we have to let "too big to fail", fail.

We have to be smart how we handle the massive economic problems that will happen next year, similar to 2008.

[Cal33]

10. Sen. Warren would be seeing to it that big banks and big businesses in general

would be cut down in size, and Sanders and Grayson would agree. No problem.

[TexasProgresive]

3. I remember Jimmy Carter with a Dem congress

They did not want to work with him because he was a Washington outsider. With Mr. Sanders, my guess, is that it would be worse.

[Gregorian]

5. Man, you've just killed my Bernie buzz.

We're in a heap more trouble than when Jimmy was in office. And I don't think millionaires in the House and Senate care about the public good. At some point they won't be able to avoid it. I think we're very close to that.

[TexasProgresive]

6. I'm sorry

I just know how poisonous some of these political types can be regardless of their party affiliation. Some are really nice people but not all and those can work the system to cause real trouble.

[Cal33]

9. Democrats have weaknesses, too. But right now, with the corporate world having been in

power since 2001, Democrats are not likely to behave the way they did with Carter.

If Dem. politicians are in power for too long, they, too, will begin to degenerate. You
know, power corrupts is a very accurate statement. It's human nature. No one should
stay in power for too long without any interruption. I'd like it much better if we had
three or four parties instead of only two.

[TexasProgresive]

11. In a way we do have about 4 parties

There are the center right republicans who the tea party leads by the nose, then there's the left wing portion of the Democratic party with little real power and the center left members who continue to lead us astray. Most parliamentary governments have small, vocal parties with whom the ruling party must form a coalition to have a government. This gives these small parties an outsized voice over the majority. That is what the far right wackadoddles have done. They are a minority but they force their selves on the majority.

[Cal33]

13. They are especially effective in forcing themselves on the majority by their innumerable ways

of cheating at the votes during election time and corrupting politicians with their ill-gained money
to make it legal for them to make more money illegally. And on it goes.

[Cosmocat]

17. Functionally it is 1 r party and 3 d parties

This is going by voting blocks.

Whoever leads who, the fact is, the republican party today votes in a united and uniform manner like no other party in our history. They vote together 95% and they vote against democrats 100% now.

They literally could just save everyone a lot time and push one button.

The democratic party is broke into three basic groups.

Strong libereals/progressives in safe districts who will vote strongly progressive most of the time.

Moderate democrats who are more traditional democrats in toss up districts who aren't willing to make tough votes most of the time.

Right leaning democrats in toss up or right leaning districts.

[upaloopa]

4. You need to get campaign finance reform and

override citizens united.
I think sometimes we don't look long term enough.

[Cal33]

12. That's for sure.

[Godhumor]

14. Well I suppose if you're going to dream, might as well dream big

I would be amazed to see even one of the things you listed happen, much less all of them.

[Cosmocat]

16. It would take 75 dem senators and 300 dem congressmen

and, I am serious.

this president had as much democratic support, numbers wise as we may see the rest of our lives in the house/senate his first two years, and the best they could muster was a republican version of health care reform. The key dem in the senate was bought and paid for by the insurance industry a decade earlier.

What we have today is one party, completely and uniformly united like no other time in our history and one party that is roughly split into three factions - strong liberals/progressives, moderate democrats and right leaning democrats.

Given that the opposition party will oppose, 100 percent ANY measure proposed by ANY (even Bernie) democrat, he or she actually would need like 75 democratic senators and 300 congressmen to pass any kind of strong progressive legislation.

[Cal33]

19. This president was eager to appease and give in to the Republicans before their bargaining sessions

Last edited Sat Jun 6, 2015, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

even began. He was this way right from the beginning, and has remained so most of the time ever since.
That's his weakness. I don't think Bernie would have behaved this way if he had been in Obama's place.

I also found it strange that when Pelosi became the House Speaker in January 2007, one of the first things
she did was to put impeachment of Bush, Jr. "off the table," when it was already known that he had lied
our nation into war with Iraq. This was definitely a crime, and he should have been impeached. Whereas
the Republicans had been doing their best in the 1990s to impeach Clinton, and they couldn't find anything
to impeach him with. That billionaire banker from PA personally paid for and sent private detectives to
Arkansas to dig up something -- anything -- on Clinton. They found out he was having extra-marital affairs,
which was not a crime. Well, everyone knows the rest of the story.

Unfortunately we had several spineless Democratic leaders, all at the same time. No wonder the Democratic
Party has ben just drifting in the recent past years, and this helped to encourage the Republicans to do
whatever they liked.

I believe Sanders, Warren and Grayson would make a great team -- a really strong and "can do" team
working closely together. They would make a dream team. Unfortunately, this very likely will remain only a
dream for the Democrats.

[Cosmocat]

20. Wtf does "appease" have to do with it?

That is some republican bullshit, like we hear 1,000 times a day how he is "making us unsafe by appeasing our enemies!"

He has no responsibility for either republicans being jackasses or democrats being cowards.

There is nothing he could have said or done to change the outcomes and I like Bernie and all, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think republicans wont treat him the same, the media wont channel their bullshit and his fellow democrats wont go hide in a corner when things start to get rough.

[Cal33]

21. Yes, the Republicans will be treating Bernie the same way they are doing to Obama, but the

difference is that Bernie is a fighter, and so are Warren and Grayson. They won't be taking
crap lying down. They will be fighting back, and then some! What a grand team the three
of them would make!

[Cosmocat]

22. That is all fine and well

but, it won't change the outcomes appreciably.

The liberal/progressives in safe districts will vote the same as will have under the worthless Obama.

Not a single republican breaks ranks because POTUS Bernie is a "fighter."

No right leaning democratic is going to break their dogma/risk their seat because POTUS Bernie is a "fighter."

Here and there maybe POTUS Bernie swings a moderate Dem because he is a "fighter."

My original point stands.

Even POTUS Bernie is going to need 70+ democratic senators and 300+ democrats in the House to get any meaningful democratic legislation passed.

[Cal33]

25. You are right. Progress will be very slow, and the fight will be all the way uphill, since the

Republicans are so deeply entrenched by now. Democracy is already half dead. We've
been overtaken more than half-way by an Oligarchy. They're doing their best to bring
back the "good old days" when all nations on earth were ruled by royalty and their
nobility, who owned not only the land of these nations, but also the people who live on
it. Royalty and nobility made up less than 1 percent of the population, the rest were
commoners, serfs or peasants.

I remember having read about I think it was Peter The Great of Russia, who was interested
in some pieces of beautiful jewelry. When asked about the price, the seller said "10,000
peasants." Peter paid it.

Corporate CEOs and high execs. fancy themselves royalty and nobility, I suppose, whether
they are aware of it or not.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. The big corporations would see to it that

Dems would not succeed unfortunately. Hopefully young people in this country will move to cooperatives.

[Kalidurga]

26. That would be great, but Bernie nailed what we really need...

we need more political participation by people who are not in office. People who will write to their congress people, who will make phone calls, and go to those boring city council meetings.

[Cosmocat]

29. YEP

This country is so tuned out right now it isn't even funny.

People get cranky when I say this, but it really isn't the pols faults.

They are who they are.

It is OUR faults - we don't have to rehire them every two, four, six years ...

[matt819]

30. And. . .

President Sanders nominates Former President Obama to the Supreme Court.

[Cal33]

31. Pres. Obama did appoint many Republicans to his cabinet (Treasury Dep't especially), but his

nominees to the Supreme Court were both fair-minded Democrats.

[awoke_in_2003]

32. The Senate is the weak link...

when we have the majority, we can't get anything done because the mean old republicans won't let us. When we have the minority we can't get anything done because we are in the minority. Until the 60 vote rule is blown up (thanks for getting on that when you had the chance, Harry- fighter my ass), the senate will be nothing but a shell game.

[Cal33]

33. You're right. I also often thought of Harry as spineless. But Elizabeth Warren is definitely

a fighter, and so are Sanders and Grayson.

[awoke_in_2003]

34. They would never give her majority leader...

she doesn't have much seniority, and Wall Street hates her.

[Arkana]

35. He'd be less effective than Obama has been at pushing progressive legislation.

[Cal33]

36. Hah! Obama had both Houses of Congress during his first two years, and he simply wasted

these precious two years. He was obsessively into bipartisanship, in spite of all the clear
messages that they hated him personally and were (and are still) trying to destroy both
him and the Democratic Party.

Obama sometimes gave in on points to the GOP before his bargaining sessions with them
had even started. I remember once Boehner was boasting, after a bargaining session,
that he had gotten "98%" of what he had wanted from Obama. It sickened me.

It's not likely that Sanders will have the advantage that Obama had. He might even have
both Houses of Congress against him -- which would make things even tougher for him.

[cali]

39. dream on.

[MillennialDem]

41. Honestly by far the best thing that will happen is flipping the supreme court. Scalia et all have

done real damage and it needs to be undone. Also unconstitutional republican state and local level crap needs to be undone.

[Cal33]

42. You sure have a point there. And the OP would be one way to do it. :)