You think Democrats should only advocate policies Republicans will let them pass.
Reilly
101

“The only way for you to arrive at that conclusion from what I wrote is on the back of that strawman you created.”

Your very premise was that Sanders was promoting magic, complex policy goals without outlining a specific program for getting them passed and you flat-out said Mitch McConnell would just offer a “smug chuckle,” which means you’re giving Mitch McConnell a de facto veto on whatever a Democrat may propose. You may not like that I’ve called attention to this fact but the proper response was just to concede you’d written a dumb thing, not to falsely accuse someone else of a logical fallacy then, in effect, double down on your earlier remarks.

“I think Democrats (or Independents running on a Democratic ticket) should advocate whatever positions they sincerely believe in.”

And that’s exactly how things are theoretically supposed to work, which gets to something else that further undermines the foundation of your prior argument. A presidential candidate advocates a program and people vote for or against him based on that program and, among other things, how sincerely they think he believes in it. Voters cast their ballots for someone who will fight for the things they want. Whether that candidate can achieve 100% of those goals is secondary to this; we don’t elect dictators. Now hold that thought and continue to your next one:

“I also think a presidential candidate, when asked how he/she would navigate the obstacles standing in the way of those policies, should be able to offer concrete answers about political realities.”

Passing legislation is, as is so often said, like making sausages. You cut deals, both in public and in the back-rooms, you horse-trade, you threaten and cajole, you offer to let Congressman So-and-So add some pork-barrel project for his district, you agree to back Senator So-and-So’s nominee for Such-and-Such a court, you target intransigent legislators for defeat. Those are the “political realities” of passing legislation and no one, not even the person asking the question, expects a presidential candidate to bring an interview to a halt and spend two or three hours outlining some detailed, prefabricated plan for getting Bill X through to the president’s desk. But you’ve just argued that anything less than that is just blowing pixie-dust. Your “political realities” involve giving Mitch McConnell a veto on whatever a Democrat may propose. It’s nonsense, and the fact that you attempted to portray the accurate depiction of your position as a “straw man” illustrates that you, yourself, don’t even believe what you’re saying when the implications of it are made clear.

“No it was never metaphorical with Sanders but if it was it ceased to be, by definition, when he invoked it as a concrete political solution.”

This is really simple: Has Sanders advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and its replacement with something else or is his talk of “revolution” the same as that of every other political candidate that throws it around?

“I have no idea what you’re expressing here.

It’s written in plain English.

Are you claiming I’m the only one not expecting guillotines?

Everyone else understands the “revolution” talk as metaphor. Unlike you, they’re not expecting guillotines.

And taking the “McConnells out of the equation” entails what exactly?

The very next line — “The same way Republicans just did with Democrats” — makes that rather plain. From the fact that you immediately offer this…

You’re back in Bernie territory, offering vague revolutionary solutions for substantive problems.”

…and then going on to some bizarre talk about my trying to have it both ways, I can only conclude you’re merely indulging in demagoguery in the hope that anyone reading this exchange will be brainless Clintonites like Albright who won’t pay any attention to what I’ve written.