I missed the Civil Rights Act in your list. I wouldn’t have included it, however, as it was a Dem Congress/Dem President and also wouldn’t really fit the modern period of how Rs and Ds work together and vote in blocs

I guess this is where we see things differently. I think all of Sanders ideas are about legislation. And I don’t see any of those happening. I partially blame lack of civics understanding in the electorate and the media’s willingness to indulge that for why everything is about legislation and little is about the…

This was a response to someone asserting that Hillary would take all of my money and give it to Wall Street. So, yeah, it is relevant in the context of being told exactly what one person would do and assuming the other is fairy tales and rainbows

Ok. So...how do we show electoral strength when dems just lost the midterms? and the midterms before? After Obama supposedly changed the electoral forces in the US? Who takes that kind of thing seriously and is actually afraid of progressive voters who have never shown up for midterms?

Well, you assume that someone will negotiate with THE PRESIDENT simply because THE PRESIDENT. I haven’t seen that.

So what’s an example of non-incrementalism on the legislative front in modern history with a divided Executive Branch and Congress?

I suspect you’re onto something about why he is running.

I guess we’ve been watching different movies since the dems lost Congress in 2010...I haven’t seen a whole lot of deferential treatment of the president by Congress

So why has he only had 6 bills get through his chamber of Congress in 25 years if he is effectively able to negotiate?

So, instead of tackling the question presented, you blame me for the problems for simply raising how the two sides come together to make something happen?

I’m genuinely curious how you see something different than incrementalism working under our system of Govt. The Founders set up an inefficient government on purpose. That’s the checks and balances. Incrementalism is a function of that, not the cause of the problems. Now, I do think our system of government is probably…

Merits have to be considered in the context of the possible. Unless you really do think that magic wands are handed out to the president. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t. You criticized the ACA because it was compromise legislation (in essence). Yes. It was. All legislation is. So, what you are…

Ok. Well, you called it “dumb”. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were challenging the merits of the topic, rather than throwing out jabs

Odd? The real world results of negotiating tactics is odd?

Well, Hillary was in Congress 8 years. Bernie has been in Congress 25 years. They both sponsored the same number of bills that became law (3). (for co-sponsored, the Lily Ledbetter Pay Act was a pretty tough law to get through).
In 8 years Hillary sponsored 38 bills that got through one chamber of Congress. In 25…

Considering how few times Sanders was able to push through legislation, there is a lot of evidence he doesn’t understand negotiation

Actually I do a lot of negotiating in my job. It’s a pretty smart technique if you want someone to counteroffer. I’m not in politics, but I’ve been negotiating deals for 18 years.

I don’t believe we would have gotten anything if more was demanded. What makes you think that there were the votes in Congress for more?

This assumes that someone will negotiate when it is too unrealistic. I don’t know if they will.
Let’s use an example. You walk into a car dealership willing to pay up to $25k for the car. It’s sticker price is $32k. You make an offer of $22K. Maybe you’ll get the $25k. They’ll talk to you.
Now, let’s say you walk in and…

So, explain to me how Bernie *actually* will be better for the common person. Not his pie in the sky dreams. What will he actually accomplish, like for realz accomplish, as someone who won’t compromise? When the only leverage he has for domestic policy is negotiating and pleading (remember, the president doesn’t…