It's Hillary Clinton proposing to expand Obamacare. What is the likelihood of it getting through the Republican controlled House? Sure it's preferable, still doesn't make it any more realistic.

Sanders essentially wants to replace the ACA. Clinton wants to bring in a set of - mainly sensible - legislation to make the existing legislation more effective.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Personally I prefer a candidate that (i) has positions that are likely to carry the support of their party in Congress; and (ii) is more electable. On both counts, I think Clinton is ahead of Sanders. Your mileage, obviously, varies.

Whatever you think Clinton policies isn't really relevant to what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that the idea that any proposal from any Democratic President getting through the current Congress, regardless of how sensible you think it is, ignores reality.

So why not support the candidate who's policies you agree with the most? If that's Clinton's then great. I happen to agree with Sanders more. It's not going to happen anyway.

We'll agree to disagree on electability, it's been done to death several times already.

The problem for Sanders in the general is his significant pure socialist background...including governmen ownership of all means of production, his belief in both a minimum and a maximum annual wage, his pronouncement that the U.S. vould take a lesson from the Casro regime and the Sandinistas. Repubs will scare the crap out of their base with all of that and more.

You are David Brock, and I claim my five pounds.

add my voice to the chorus. Really, you are watching too much Faux Noise if you think there is a war on Christianity.

I think you and Road Warrior are saying very much the same thing - that Clinton and Sanders will encounter the same level of pushback, regardless of who is more or less moderate. Not sure I agree with that entirely, though I understand why you would think so.

But regardless, what if the presence of Trump on the R ticket kills a good number of Rs in congress? And/or, what about 2 years from now, when the next mid-terms occur? Maybe having a more moderate D president NOW won't make any difference, but maybe it would be a benefit in 2 years, if more people vote D in the next mid-terms? I think Sanders will 'never' get his policies through, even if the D's get control of senate or house; but Clinton has a better chance in such a scenario.

Broadly, in reading amideislas recent posts, I think she has made many valid points, and she's contributing much to the discussion.

So WTF do we have to attack her (his?) 'level of knowledge' and antagonize her? You guys have a disagreement over whether Clinton will or will not be any more effective against a republican congress. As amideislas says, she's no prophet. We can only speculate. That's what this forum is - speculation by interested parties. Can we please stop using attacks like this when it's very much a matter of opinion / subjective?

It's no wonder people drop out of the discussion. Let's try to keep people involved.

The problem is the likelihood of Dems winning the House ranges from little to none. And in an off year election it's even less likely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...is-impossible/

What Dems need to do is concentrate on winning back control at the state level to reverse the GOP gerrymandering. Until that happens I don't see much of anything getting done in congress.

The irony is, it would need the type of revolution Sanders is talking about for it to happen...

So they can do their own gerrymandering?

Exactly. Then the GOP will have something to whine about for the next few years.

The Repubs are kings of that tactic. They just lost one court case and were ordered to undo the ridiculous gerrymandering they engaged in. The Dems have never come close the Repubs in that category.

I think you downplay them, they have had some stunning attempts and successes.

We managed to get an independent redistricting committee here in AZ. You could tell they were doing a good job because BOTH sides complained!

This is pretty ballsy by Sanders. Being pro-Israel is a given in American politics. I don't think it will make a difference vote wise. If what Bernie stands for hasn't turned off voters so far, I don't see this tipping them over the edge.

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/09/...rael-palestine