This is simply not true. The party has moved left in a variety of ways beyond social issues. The party has moved away from the Clinton model. I seem to recall Romney making a big stink about work requirements being removed from some welfare qualifications. The party has moved farther left on taxes. The party has moved left on the environment in terms of advocating carbon based taxes. The party has not moved left on healthcare. Obama has reversed much of Clinton's "the days of big government are over" take on the economy.
No the party has not moved away from the Clinton model. Your Romney example is nothing. The fact that you're using that as your basis is telling. The Democratic Party is playing defense and not been offensive for a long time (ACA notwithstanding). The party has not moved further to the left on taxes. Obama made the Bush tax cuts for the middle class permanent and slightly raised them on those in upper income brackets. The party has not moved left on healthcare. Obamacare is more or less Mitt Romney's healthcare bill. The Republican Party has moved so far right that you're not perceiving center-right legislation as being progressive. I am someone who understands incrementalism and taking what you can get, but I don't need to exaggerate it. Obamacare will only be seen as moving us to the left if it leads to national insurance. Otherwise it is just right-wing retrenchment. The NATION has moved left, the Democratic Party is trailing it.
Sanders has constantly talked about manufacturing returning to the United States. "Renegotiating trade deals" is not a solution. The jobs are gone, period. Unless he wants to support lower worker wages which he doesn't support (and neither do I).
You're being ridiculous. You keep harping on Sanders for details but do not do the same thing for Clinton. Do you really think I am going to sit here and write a dissertation? Actually, I would have welked a wonkish policy debate months ago, but right now we're both just making claims and not getting into specifics. However, it's just entirely disingenuous to use a stump speech as the basis for discussion. Sanders talks about American manufacturing jobs the same way all Democratic presidents talk about building things in the US. This would only be a serious point if it was at the crux of his policy, but it's not. He uses them as part of his spiel about unfair trade deals (and he's right about those).
Sanders' plans revolve around magic and have no financial or political means of occurring. "Mass mobilization" is not going to cause Paul Ryan to raise taxes by enough to pay for free college, healthcare, etc. Sanders can't even mobilize voters enough to win the democrat nomination or match what Obama did in 2008.
Every major political change in American history has been the result of mass mobilization. Every. Single. One. The Tea Party literally just did it. Sanders is saying to first shift what people perceive as possible and then compromise and govern from there. You don't start with a fatalist view. It's a tried and true philosophy. But every single thing, from the Voting Rights Act to the New Deal is a result of a wave. What is also hilarious is that his plan is more realistic than Hillary's in that regard. She won't get anything through either, just like Obama did not. You literally either have to pressure these people or get them out. He's more likely to have a coalition to get them out. It's really that simple. I don't know if you checked, but Hillary's plans require over a trillion in spending too. For any of this to be possible you need young people to come out in large numbers, and he's better at doing it. It was an era that Obama made when he disengaged from Obama for America (young people) after being elected. His team even admitted that it was intentional because they found that type of apparatus to large to manage.
Everything he is advocating is more realistic from the simple standpoint that he is more likely to get you a Democratic Senate and then House of Representatives than Hillary would. Democrats working within the confines have Congress over the past 20 years have always ended up pushing right-wing legislation. Clinton: Telecommunications Act, ending McCain-Feingold, was about to alter social security if not for Lewinsky, etc. Obama and his grand bargain offer to Boehner would have been catastrophic.
Moreover, the idea that Sanders ideas have no financial means of occurring is just patently false and ignorant. He has put his plan out there that is endorsed by over 300 renowned economists. He is advised by Jeffrey Sachs, etc. Basically, everyone who has gotten these issues right is supporting him and somehow you came to the conclusion that his ideas have no financial means? The people advising him have been working on plans to get these progressive ideas to fruition for years. Go google his advisers and their research then come back and say what you're saying. Yes, everything he says is financially possible. If you said politically impossible then I might back you, but you said financially and that is just simply not true. All you have to do is google debates over his plans.
I'd argue Sanders fans DO believe this stuff is happening tomorrow because they have clearly rejected the tenants of progressive change. A progressive can look at Obamacare and tell that it is a trojan horse for single payer, and given the inevitable demographic shifts of this country it's going to happen eventually. You further expand Medicaid under the law by increasing the income requirement threshold, change the name, increase hospital reimbursement fees, increase taxes, and boom you have single payer. A Sanders supporter looks at Obamacare and wants nothing to do with it while advocating an entirely new system that will cost more and has no chance of passing congress.
I would argue that you are wrong because I know you are wrong. You clearly do not know any Sanders supporters who are not 18 years old. Obamacare is not a trojan horse for single payer. That is the problem right there. You keep asserting things with nothing to support it. You keep defending the Democratic Party with the "but eventually" and ignoring that 30 years of that shyt is exactly why people are here. People have heard that locally and nationally for decades. Obamacare is what it is because the insurance industry drafted it with the intention that it would be around for a long time. They specifically carved out the pieces of the legislation that would have lowered costs. The parties responsible for that are now HRC surrogates? Do you even do your research? Moreover, Sanders himself helped draft Obamacare. He understood its benefits. I advocated for Obamacare when I worked in Congress. We lobbied for it, so don't tell me what it is and what it isn't. Nothing is "inevitable" because of demographic shifts if you do not fight for the idea. 8 years ago we were talking about a permanent Democratic Majority and that didn't happen because people lost faith in the system. Change has never come from incremental measures in a matter, it comes from a loud bang in people's face until they do something about it. Even Obamacare is the result of a wave that swept Democrats in. It's just that the wave was compromised by people who belonged to the insurance industries.
Here's a thing, there are different ideas of progressive change and what you fail to understand is that I understand the argument you're making completely. I made it for years on this very message board. I'm rejecting it now because history shows that it does not work. So once you understand that, then you will understand Sanders supporters. The Public Option passed the House in 2009, why the fukk would it not pass if we get more progressives in office? Once again, you keep arguing about "right now." None of us see this as a right now thing, it's a long term battle. It requires getting progressives in office and changing what the agenda is. That is the INCREMENTAL CHANGE that we're for. We're willing to wait until we have the coalition instead of electing someone who will never build it and who will ultimately make progressive ideals seem foolish.
I voted for Sanders in my state's primary because I respect him. But he has no idea how any of this works and is clearly less versed on the issues than Hillary. As someone who works in finance I want to bang my head when I hear him talk about banks. He doesn't understand how any of this works and can't even explain how he'll "break the banks." Last I checked he doesn't support nationalizing them either.
"As someone who works in finance," is never a good place to start. You never hear me say "as an attorney." It's just one of those things people don't say unless they want to sound pretentious. The New York Times--which has endorsed Clinton and has taken money from her--even repudiated the notion that he did not know what he was talking about. Now if you want to say Sanders is poor at explaining certain things--yes, he is. But everything else you said is the rhetoric of someone who never followed up after that interview and who has not researched the people advising him or his speech on the topic last year or the legislation he introduced. Hillary DOES NOT know more about this stuff than he does. No one running for president knows this stuff well. It's all about knowing how to sell that you do. And Clinton knows how to portray that. Anyhow, we'll get nowhere like this. And I've tapped out of debating politics on here. But if you want to PM and talk SPECIFIC policy. I will oblige. But trust, I am not voting for Sanders today because I think his ideas are not possible (also we all know that strategies of implementation change once elected).
nikka still on about this shyt 
On some Joan and Melissa Rivers shyt. "Like OMG, did you see what J Cole wore!! Like OMG, it's like totally not sheik, like totally not Saks 5th Ahvenue. Like totally 
"
If u ain't real, you're not even a man.
