2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: If Bernie is courting progressive voters, why Liberty University? [View all]guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You closing argument is quite well put:
"I will vote for someone I KNOW will fight for ME. I don't know that about Sanders. He may well fight for white upper-middle and middle class men, but that isn't me. I understand that refusing to surrender myself to their interests makes me the enemy around here. Nothing I can do about that. My vote is my own, and I have no obligation to put others' privilege before my basic rights and concerns.
Then there is the fact he has absolutely no record of success in implementing any of what he promises. What matters is not what politicians promise but what they get done. His record in that regard is not persuasive."
My comment:
Obviously any President can only accomplish what the Legislative and Judicial Branches will allow. That is the structure of the US government.
Regarding:
Gun control: My position is that the US would be far better served by adopting the Canadian Firearms Act, but such a thing in today's political climate may be impossible. No matter my position on the role and work of the NRA, the organization is very effective at leveraging their financial contributions.
Regarding money:
Sanders does use the Koch Brothers as a symbol for what is wrong with campaign finance laws in the US. It is a simplistic rhetorical device, but such speech can make the message easier to digest.
Regarding womens' issues:
I agree that a President's priorities DO set the agenda. A President can put those priorities in front of the nation in a State of the Union speech, among other venues, and force the nation to at least consider the issues. Any President is also constricted by what Congress will consider.
My personal candidate will be the Democratic nominee. I find much to like in the candidacies of all of the Democratic candidates, and some things to dislike. But my dislikes will not cause me to NOT vote for the Democratic candidate.