If we’re talking about not-so-progressive votes, I think Hillary gets the worse of it.
I think “incrementalism” is a misrepresentation.
There’s a difference between a progressive given to pragmatic compromise, and an elitist conservative who’s just pretending to be progressive. Hillary seems to me to be a smidge more the latter than the former.
Right. Deep down, these “idealists” don’t want to be held responsible for compromise. They don’t want to have someone (whose piece of the pie got cut out in the process) to confront them and scream at them for “selling them out”. So they maintain an impeachable pure position, and point the fingers of blame at the right for the zero good that is accomplished for anyone.
The reason poor POC rarely take this kind of uncompromising stand is that they *need *that half loaf–they can’t afford the consequences of getting none at all. Whereas the educated white liberals are still fine economically even when the right takes over, and they can keep standing on their pure white pedestals tut-tutting and pointing fingers of blame at everyone but themselves. Kind of enraging, when you think about it.
Mmmm…that depends. I don’t want to “overturn Citizens United” (as you’ve seen in our discussion in another thread); and I side-eye Bernie’s promise to use Wall Street money to pay for college tuition for everyone (even rich kids), particularly his implication that this is repayment for the “Wall Street bailout”. Um, actually they already repaid that money, with interest.
Idealism fills arenas, but running an actual country takes more than just good ideas.
This is what I worry about most in a hypothetical Sanders vs. GOP general election. Like that other thread about the GOP possibly using the hammer & sickle against Sanders, I worry about what his response is. So far, I like how he’s run his campaign, but because its against another Democrat. He doesn’t really go negative against Clinton and he’s been more about building himself up than tearing Clinton down. However, this also means that I’ve never seen him go negative and don’t know if he can sink to the levels that the GOP will surely sink to. What’s he going to do when, not if, when the GOP runs his face next to Stalin and lies about how he wants to take 90% of your money. What’s he going to do if they play ads with Sanders meekly standing in the background while those Black Lives Matter protesters scare off white voters?
I like Sanders a lot. I align with him on the majority of his views. But that will matter only if he can get elected. I am more sure of Clinton being elected, so I support her over Sanders. Obviously if Sanders does happen to win out, I’ll support him enthusiastically. But the consequences of losing is too much in this election with Crazy guy, Stupid guy, and Crazy and Stupid guy on the GOP side.
Well, no. As I’ve said before in this forum, I think he’s trying to start something that does not end in July 2016 and does not end in November 2016, no matter what happens between now and then. His campaign may well morph into a LW version of the Tea Party, struggling with the current Dem Establishment for control of the party. And that, if so, will matter.
And the above is a good reason for any leftist or progressive or liberal to vote for Sanders in the primary even if you don’t actually want him, personally, as POTUS (which he will not be). Anything that makes him look stronger now will help the movement down the road.
I just don’t know if the traditionally apathetic young college kid crowd would be able to muster up the effort to sustain a movement for years. Old angry white people on the GOP side have free time, more money, and lots of anger due to ignorance and/or lies. That’s hard to fight against. There are people who still think evolution is false and that Sandy Hook was a hoax, these people can be angry for years for terrible reasons.
Most of all, my calculation has been like this: It is worse, much much worse, if Sanders runs and loses to a Republican, than if Hillary runs as a moderate Democrat and wins. The negative consequences of losing the presidency far outweighs the benefits of a real liberal like Sanders winning. I just can’t take that chance, and given my memory of 2004 and predictions of Kerry winning, I’d much rather go for the safe bet than take my chances.
I guess I’m lucky though, I don’t have to make that decision. I live in a state where the primary will have long been decided by the time we vote.
Unless you’re looking at different pollsfrom the rest of us, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to think Sanders would be more likely to lose the general election than Hillary.
Like I said, I remember Kerry being up in polls and being pretty sure he was going to win until election night. Clinton may have more negatives, but she’s shown herself to be tough and willing to fight dirty to win. Sanders may poll well, but this is before the GOP has turned their sights onto him. How he will deal with a barrage of negative ads painting him as everything from Stalin to Satan is unknown, and I simply am not willing to take a chance on him losing. Clinton’s polling to beat the GOP even when half the time they are targeting her as if she’s already the nominee. Sanders will drop, and he may be too nice to fight back effectively.
. . . strongly reminiscent of the shit Obama has taken for the past eight years, and Bill Clinton took before him. I rather think it will only play with those who would never vote for him anyway, everyone else has been desensitized to this sort of thing.
Sanders has been in Congress for decades, I don’t think he is unaware of how low the GOP can go. And he has many people on his campaign team who worked for Obama, and have both faced and beaten the GOP propaganda machine. Also, I think you must have been reading polls selectively; I followed the 2004 election closely and expected it to be a nailbiter, as it was.
And wait, but also: If Clinton is “tough and willing to fight dirty”, and Sanders beats her, doesn’t that suggest he could also beat a tough, dirty Republican? My guess is that in the next few weeks we will see how he does against relentless negative campaigning, now that Hillary has failed to knock him out by playing nice.
I’m not saying Democrats haven’t taken such attacks before. I’m saying that the ones who win usually respond well and I don’t know if Sanders will be another Obama or another Kerry.
Sanders is from Vermont, he doesn’t campaign in swing states like Ohio, Virginia, or Florida. Vermonters (Vermontians? Vermontese?) will respond to “He’s a socialist” ads much different than people in swing states.
Not necessarily. The people voting for them in the primary are left-leaning or really left already. Attacks on his identification as a Social Democrat is less likely to be effective than when being judged by middle America
Well, we don’t know what will happen until it happens, and the scenarios you worry about certainly aren’t far-fetched. OTOH, one might also worry about Hillary’s track record of blowing the 2008 nomination race after seeming to have it sewed up. Your assessment of her as a shrewd campaigner isn’t really backed by her actual past performance.
By the time California votes, it won’t matter. I’m half glad I don’t have to make this choice. I just hope that whoever loses, their supporters don’t not vote or vote for a Republican. That is the biggest problem I have with Clinton’s campaign decision to go negative on some areas. It won’t help the Democrat in the general
If we include grassroots supporters’ comments (and we should, since their activism beyond voting and fundraising is the central predicate of Bernie’s campaign), then the Sanders side is the source of the lion’s share of the negativity.
Tim Donovan: Bernie Sanders, the shape of things to come: Why his popularity is no fluke – and his way is the future.
BG ISTM you are muddling up your own op with this last one.
“Electability” is a different question than the tension between pragmatic “realism” and “idealism.”
I do however find the irony of the article amusing. The youngest voters are often the most idealistic and the least realistic. To put that forth as a new dynamic is silliness. It is however notable that the progressive stand bearer is the oldest one running. Get some more far left newer generation progressives elected in Congress and to Governors’ mansions, in a position to play on the national stage and we can talk about the shape of politics to come.
You’re missing the point, it’s not an innocence-of-youth thing, its a change-in-generational-cultures thing – for which there is plenty of other evidence, all over the place, to the point that it ought to be an everybody-knows thing by now. These Millennials almost certainly are going to remain progressive as they age and mature – that is, they might become somewhat less so, but still will remain strikingly more progressive than the party’s Boomers and GenXers.
It relates – the more electable a given politics, the more realistic it becomes. Remember, in this discussion “realistic” does not mean “public policies that would work if tried” – that is hardly even being discussed at all by the pundits, and not much more by the Dopers in this thread – it means “policies that plausibly could be tried.” Arguments over whether Sanders’ tax plans would work as intended relate to the former; arguments over whether President Sanders could even get them implemented or get anything else done if he had to work with a Republican Congress relate to the latter. And if the generational ground really shifts that much, Congress won’t be Republican-controlled for very many more cycles, and then, no matter who is POTUS, progressivism becomes more realistic or pragmatic in the sense of implementable.
See the thing with those “everybody-knows” things is that they are often fictional.
Really? Millennials are, relative to the generation or so above them, much more progressive than say 20-somethings of the '60s were to the generation or so above them? No. They overwhelmingly share their parents’ beliefs.
How overwhelmingly liberal/progressive do you think Millennials are? 3 to 1 liberal to conservative? 2 to 1? How about about even?
In fact more Millennials describe themselves as “moderate” than any other age cohort! 30% of MIllennials self-identify as liberal while 40% self-identify as “moderate”; 31% of Boomers identified as liberal when they were that age. It shifted over the years.
And right, I think Sanders would be possibly electable against Trump or Cruz (and would lose badly to Rubio or Kasich) and I think that his policies that differ from Hillary’s are mostly not ones that could plausibly be tried under any plausible Congressional composition, including a significant shift Democraticward; that he would instead of actually choosing winnable fights, continue his long established track record of more often than not choosing “idealism” over actually getting real albeit imperfect good done. Instead of doing a less than ideal good he would do nada.
There just are not too many young rising stars of hardline progressives being elected taking over the party. Think of harder line national level progressives and who comes to mind? The youngest might be Tammy Baldwin age 53. Then you have my generation and older - Franken and Warren both 64 … and Franken? Has accomplished some good by choosing winnable fights that he could find Republicans who he could ally with.