What would a Bernie Sanders Presidency have accomplished?

[budmantis]

I've always been a fan of alternate history and my favorite author in that genre is Harold Turtledove. Now that Trump has been elected by the state's electors and his victory is assured, perhaps we should do a what if? scenario. Consider Bernie Sanders as the Democrat's presidential nominee and as an extension, consider Sanders having defeated Donald Trump in the general election, both in the popular vote and electorally. What would a Sander's presidency have accomplished in your estimation? Would the Democrats have achieved a majority in the Senate? In the House of Reps.? Or both?

How much progress would his administration have achieved in regards to climate change and reducing the country's dependence on fossil fuels? How much cooperation would he and the Democrats receive from the Republicans? What kind of headwinds would he have faced by those opposed to his policies?

[budmantis]

In the "Trump to eliminate climate research" thread, Tea Potty has asserted that the Obama administration and the Democratic establishment in general has failed us. Also, if Clinton had become President, it would have been business as usual and no substantive change would have occurred in regards to climate change legislation. He further asserts that a Sander's presidency would have resulted in a paradigm shift toward elimination of fossil fuel dependency and substantive progress toward addressing climate change. A revolution of sorts.

I for one would have loved to see Bernie Sanders win the Presidency and achieve all of the above and more. Unfortunately, I think he would be facing the same headwinds that Obama has faced during his tenure as President.

If Sanders had been the Democrat's presidential nominee and subsequently won the Presidency, I believe the Democrat's would have won control of the Senate but not the House of Representatives. Considering the actions of the Republicans during Obama's presidency, I believe Sander's would be facing the same level of difficulty from them as they would in my estimation, continue to stonewall any forward momentum of his agenda.

In short, Sanders would be facing the same dilemma as Obama did during his terms in office.

[pileus]

Has there ever been a political figure that gets as much benefit of the doubt than Bernie Sanders (I-VT)? 

I've followed him for a long time, but he's not a Democrat.  If the man was serious about a "revolution", he should have run as an independent.  That would have presented a bright light contrast in terms of the choices for president, and he could have really been more effective in presenting his platform and arguing his case to the American people as an alternative to Clinton or Trump.  I would have taken him seriously as an independent, but I dismissed him from the outset for his choice to run as a Dem.

Instead, he high jacked the Democratic Party, aggressively condemned Clinton, and expected long time core Democratic constituencies to bend to his will.  He had a terrible tempermant and IMO Steve Bannon and the Trump team would have had a field day in casting him as a cartoonish Socialist Jew if he was the Dem candidate.  He would have gotten crushed, and Dem turnout would have been even lighter across some key demos.  He would have done very well on the West coast and in a few New England states, but the folks with "economic anxiety" would have still went with Trump, as Sanders was not going to do anything about the scary Muslims and Mexicans.

[Neven]

I fear with Sanders as president, parties at the White House wouldn't be as glittery as under Obama. And less frequent.

[pileus]

Tho everything would have been free, and young angry white males would have rightfully been able to focus more on tending to their beards, making cider, and creating new apps for funny cat videos.  What a wonderful world it could have been.

The fact is, Dems liked and preferred that woman, Clinton, over Bernie. That's really gotta sting to his core supporters.

[shmengie]

Way back... err.. One year ago I heard about Burnie.

My impression, loved his message, BUT!!!  It was clear his message is a radical change from politics as usual.

As a general rule, PPL don't like change.  We tend to fear it, much like terrorism. 

Burnie has been steadfast and has sticks to his message and continues, even though he does not make a lot of headway.  I admire his tenacity and wish we had more like him.

His message is well grounded on reality, IMO, but that doesn't seem to float in political currents.

We need a paradigm shift, and we got one, unfortunately, the lier who's pants are on fire, won.

[pileus]

US GHG emissions under a strawman Sanders admin might been significantly lower. His policies would have created a deep and severe recession in the US and globally, to be sure.  This all assumes scenarios where the GOP and the monied interests roll over to Sanders vision.  That vision is either in the fantasy or fiction genre, not quite sure.

But that gets to the heart of the matter on global warming:  unfettered capitalism is completely incompatible with preserving the biosphere and cryosphere, and reducing carbon emissions. 

It's probable that we remain with unrestrained capitalism until we are forced off the rails.  Hopefully renewables and other energy technologies can rush in to fill the void, because people sure aren't going to change their consumption habits easily.

[budmantis]

I fear with Sanders as president, parties at the White House wouldn't be as glittery as under Obama. And less frequent.

Your chances of getting invited would have been better though!