And huh, Tammy Baldwin and Al Franken have both endorsed Hillary. So has Sherrod Brown. And more others than I can count. Sanders fellow emerging majority of hard core idealism over pragmatism progressives have rallied around him to the tune of … two Representatives, the co-chairs of the progressive caucus; multiple vice-chairs and members have endorsed Hillary. No other members of the progressive caucus have joined the co-chairs in endorsing Bernie. Not even one other Senator and no Governors either, progressive or otherwise, have rallied to Bernie.
Jamelle Bouie has blocked me on Twitter, but I’m still going to share this piece of his because I think it’s an excellent takedown of how Bernie’s being a little unfair in the way he defines himself as a “progressive” and Hillary as not one.
To be fair, it’s possible that HRC’s team learned from their 2008 mistakes to their benefit this year. Bernie is still calling himself a ‘democratic socialist’ when he’s obviously a New Deal social liberal and social democrat.
That said, I don’t see Clinton as all that progressive other than the obviously self-serving feminism, so the argument that she’s a cleverer sort of progressive seems counterfactual to me.
It gets to the heart of the matter. Thing is that the window, Overton or otherwise, has shifted. In the '80s we had Dukakis running away from a “liberal” label. Now we have what were very progressive/liberal out there ideas especially on the social front embraced by those who call themselves moderate and even by some who call themselves conservative.
Labels are squishy things that tend to slide all over the place.
I just don’t understand why you can’t be idealist in what you want to accomplish, but realist in how you go about it. And without it seeming like your idealism is saying what people want to hear.
Obama definitely ran an idealist campaign in 2008, but he’s been almost too much of a realist in office. And he’s been keeping the majority of his promises. I don’t see any reason we couldn’t get someone even better than he is.
As for who will win: Clinton. They’re about even at best, so if she actually does fall a bit, merely being a woman will give her an edge–an edge nullified back in 2008.
Well many of the items in “the culture war” that were considered very liberal/progressive positions not so many years back - civil rights, gay marriage, equal pay for equal work, so on - are now broadly embraced by most who call themselves “moderates.”
And of course the article you linked to traces the morphing meaning of the label “progressive.” Does “progressive” now exclude those who accomplish by building broad consensuses?
The only reason it gave was because people have interests and will be impacted. But that’s always true and they still don’t vote in midterms. Voter disillusionment is a thing.
One angle is that a lot of Bernie supporters are new. They have no allegiance to Hillary or the party. So if it weren’t for Bernie they wouldn’t be voting at all, or they’d be voting for Jill Stein. One big twist would be if people go full anti-establishment and vote Trump. It’ll be hilarious when Trump attacks Hillary from the left in the general.
I hope this is right. Last night, I got pretty irked when an old friend who now lives in Portland OR called me up and insisted that Hillary voters will still vote for Bernie if he’s the nominee, but Bernheads (including him) will stay home if Hillary is the standardbearer. I did not at all like what sounded to me like an extortion threat, or a game of “chicken” in which he is declaring that his side has disabled the brakes and steering wheel.
The same thing happened in 2008. Lots of Hillary supporters swore up and down that they’d never vote for Obama (and to a lesser extent, vice versa). It didn’t happen in significant numbers.
Bernie seems like a standard European Social Democrat - I appreciate its a seismic shift for the US but this is mainstream in the rest of the developed world.
Fwiw, I think it’s two generational changes - the WW2 greatest country in the world’ folks dying and the more worldly aware (Internet) under 30s thinking really very differently. Hence you get gay marriage, drug decrim, etc.
Plus the whole Wall Street/GS/Billionaire scamming the people for decades thing sinking in.
It’s certainly possible that they really mean it this time. But I don’t believe it will happen.
If you’re willing to vote for Sanders and politically aware enough to be following the process at this point, you’re politically aware enough to know that failing to support Hillary over the GOP candidate is a terrible decision (for example, you probably know that the next President will likely appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, and know that the Supreme Court matters quite a bit to the progressive agenda). There is some small number of people who incorrectly think that Hillary isn’t meaningfully different from Cruz or Trump, but the number of such people who are are both politically engaged and willing to vote for a mainstream candidate like Sanders is quite small indeed.
Also, if (when) Sanders loses, he’ll fully support Hillary, just as she fully supported Obama. He’s said before that their differences are very small compared to the differences with the Republicans, and that he wouldn’t do anything to play spoiler.
Indeed–this is crappy politics, and I condemn your friend for engaging in it. I hope you’ll similarly condemn Clinton supporters who spend time talking about all the moderate Democrats (including themselves) who will vote Republican, or not vote, rather than vote for Sanders. I hope you won’t decide that that’s different because reasons.
But…they’re not parallel. A Clinton supporter might genuinely be closer in politics to a GOP nominee than to Sanders. The reverse isn’t true.
Now, I think that’s really pretty rare, especially if the nominee is someone like Cruz. But it’s at least theoretically possible for your hierarchy to be Clinton > Rubio > Sanders because of where you fall in the political spectrum. It’s much harder to explain a hierarchy of Sanders > Rubio > Clinton.
It’s possible, just like it’s possible for someone to not be able to vote in good conscience for a Democrat and prefer a Green candidate protest vote–but to be willing to make an exception for Sanders. It’s possible for such a person in a solidly red or blue state to do so with a clear conscience.
In either case, I think teh vast majority of people saying such things are engaging in extortive behavior and would actually vote for the Democratic candidate in the election.
