# Clinton supporters, why do you prefer Hillary in the primary **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 16, 2016, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318 "2016-04-16T00:35:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/61 "2016-04-16T16:14:16Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > [Political ideologies in the United States - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideologies_in_the_United_States#Typological_groups) > > [Beyond Red vs. Blue | Pew Research Center](http://www.people-press.org/2005/05/10/beyond-red-vs-blue/) > > Conservative Democrats - 15% of electorate. > Disadvantaged Democrats - 10% of electorate. > Liberals - 19% of electorate. The 15% in the middle (Conservative Democrats - who tend to be pretty liberal - there aren’t a lot of true Conservatives (by U.S. standards) in the Democratic Party) is worth more than the 19% at the end. While some of the liberals will go vote Green - losing a vote for the Democrats, the conservative Democrats could go vote Republican - gaining the GOP a vote. That would be poor strategy. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/62 "2016-04-16T16:20:01Z")
She’s smart. She’s not an idealogue. I don’t feel like she puts ideology above science. She isn’t demonizing people. She has more than one speech. For me, Citizens United is about the 50th most important thing going on. I feel that people are pointing to that decision to try to explain the world in places where it makes no sense (just as we Democrats often point to gerrymandering to explain things like losing Senate races. That also makes no sense). There is both too much money in politics and money has less impact than people with no money want to believe. Feet on the ground matter more than money in the bank. Let’s not act as if we’d win if only the other side couldn’t put as much money in without us actually, you know, going to the polls. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/63 "2016-04-16T16:34:46Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > For me, Citizens United is about the 50th most important thing going on. Recently one of my uber liberal friends posted that its important to elect Bernie because Wall Street is the root of all our problems. Wall Street has been quite good to me, personally. You know what is more important to me. Racial issues. Reproductive rights. Public education. Separation of Church and State. Go ahead and tax the rich. I’m all for Universal Health Care. Regulate the banks. Repeal Citizens United. But Wall Street and Citizens United have only a passing relationship to what I think our biggest issues are. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/64 "2016-04-16T16:38:36Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Sure. The fact that a senator who had 3% of the vote when it started and was originally seen as a fringe candidate like Kucinich is almost tied with the front runner is nothing more than an irritation. If you’re _extremely_ generous with your definition of “almost tied”, maybe. > [@](#): > > The writing is on the wall, if the democratic party wants to maintain its power base, it is going to have to become more progressive to win over young people (young people being anyone under 45). And it will do that by actually \*making \*progress, not with empty inflammatory speeches that only make it harder and can only damage the party’s credibility as progressive. As already discussed, Clinton can do that and Sanders cannot. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/65 "2016-04-16T16:55:47Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > The 15% in the middle (Conservative Democrats - who tend to be pretty liberal - there aren’t a lot of true Conservatives (by U.S. standards) in the Democratic Party) is worth more than the 19% at the end. While some of the liberals will go vote Green - losing a vote for the Democrats, the conservative Democrats could go vote Republican - gaining the GOP a vote. That would be poor strategy. Conservative democrats are mostly just socially conservative, pro-religious democrats. I do not think they would switch to the republican party and abandon their economic views. Of the 3 groups that make up the democratic base, conservative democrats identify with the democratic party the most. However they were also the group most likely to vote for Bush in 2004. > [@](#): > > PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/66 "2016-04-16T17:05:08Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > I’m excited about this election because I get to describe myself as an antidisestablishmentarist. I believe the word is “antidisestablishmentarian.”\* (Same number of letters, but spell it that way and you get one more syllable out of it.) \*Originally coined to denote British opponents of disestablishing the Established Church, i.e., the Church of England. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/67 "2016-04-16T17:09:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I believe the word is “antidisestablishmentarian.”\* (Same number of letters, but spell it that way and you get one more syllable out of it.) > \*Originally coined to denote British opponents of disestablishing the Established Church, i.e., the Church of England. Yeah, I hadn’t finished coffee yet and left out a few letters. I’m not the best speller in the world to start with. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/68 "2016-04-16T17:13:17Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Conservative democrats are mostly just socially conservative, pro-religious democrats. I do not think they would switch to the republican party and abandon their economic views. Are you sure, because I know a whole lot of fiscal conservative, social liberals in the Democratic party. I think that’s true of a lot of the African American vote - when the issue is abortion or gay rights. But I doubt that is true for the Suburban soccer moms. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/69 "2016-04-16T17:16:27Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I was hoping this discussion would avoid insults of Clinton vs. Sanders camp. I’m a Sanders supporter but I agree with what Bernie Sanders said, Hillary on her worst day is infinitely better than president Trump or Cruz. > > You are free to insult all the young people, but young people lean left because they’ve seen the system fail when they were at their most vulnerable. It is the opposite of people who were young in the 70s and 80s. back then people came of age politically when they were seeing the failures of leftism (under Carter) and the success of conservatism (under Reagan). > > Right now young people are seeing the failures of movement conservatism. Unaffordable health care, plutocracy, oligarchy, an unstable financial system, income inequality, constant financial insecurity, draconian policing, abusive drug war policies, oppression of minorities, etc. And they are moving towards the opposite end of the spectrum because of it. > > The political bias people today have will follow them their whole lives. I still lean left just as much or more as i did when i was young, that has nothing to do with supporting Bernie over Hillary. My political bias has not changed, only my understanding of how things work and what politicians can and can’t accomplish. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/70 "2016-04-16T17:32:14Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > You are assuming Sanders is not qualified. You’re correct. A history of public service helps but he hasn’t shown that his ideas are workable or that he can come close to achieving them. When I listen to Obama or Clinton speak on policy, I get the feeling that they have looked at the angles and know their shit. I get the feeling that they’ve thought about how it can be achieved. I don’t get that feeling from Sanders. He makes me think he’s a great ideas man, not so much in the execution. So, right or wrong, my experience in watching Sanders had led me to assume that. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/71 "2016-04-16T17:37:30Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > But his big appeal is his affect on the national narrative and the sense of fear he is inflicting on the democratic party which is used to being able to ignore progressive voices or to placate them with empty promises, knowing full well they could just choose corporate interests after being elected without facing repercussions. > > I used to make posts several years ago talking about how the progressives needed something like a tea party movement, a movement of activists who let the party establishment know they weren’t going to be ignored anymore. The Sanders campaign is the beginning of that movement (and it is far more effective and organized than occupy wall street). Look how well the Tea Party worked out. It’s not a movement yet. It’s very easy to be passionate and energetic during a presidential campaign. It remains to be seen just how many of the Sanders supporters are committed to actually working for change in the long term. You’d have to be an idiot or completely naive not to see the problems Bernie points out. But even getting a start on solving them will require more than just rah-rah. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/72 "2016-04-16T17:39:30Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > He makes me think he’s a great ideas man, not so much in the execution. I don’t think of him as an ideas man. That suggests, to me, someone who is thinking of new things, new angles. To me, Sanders is proposing old ideas. There’s nothing wrong with old ideas, mind you. If they are good ideas, they can be a thousand years old. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/73 "2016-04-16T18:03:51Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I’m a Sanders supporter, and I’m curious as to the motives for people who support Clinton. I’m a right-of-center Republican who is voting for Clinton so probably have a different viewpoint than the typical Sanders supporter. > [@](#): > > 1. Clinton reminds people of the good times in the 90s. Back when the economy was going well and we were at peace. Before 9/11 and the war on terror, before Iraq, Bush, the economic collapse. In fact politics was a bit more civilized back in the 90s and I’d wager things are more dysfunctional now. Maybe Clinton reminds them of the better days. This doesn’t factor into it for me, Hillary was first lady in the 1990s, I’m one that doesn’t actually give Bill a huge amount of credit for the good economy of the 1990s. I think he worked with the Republican House in ways that were good for the economy, but I **don’t believe Presidents control the economy**. I think they can more easily harm the economy than help it, in fact I think the former is very easy but actually being able to “make the economy better” is, I think, largely outside of the power of the office of the Presidency, or any political office. The 1990s economic boom was largely because of technological and global economic trends, not because of any one politician and certainly not because of Hillary Clinton. > [@](#): > > 1. Clinton has a long track record of working on her beliefs going back for decades. She was pushing for women’s rights, health reform, etc. on a national level for over 20 years. These issues aren’t big to me, I would like to see more healthcare reform but this isn’t a significant reason for my support of Clinton. > [@](#): > > 1. Clinton is an incrementalist. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and pushing for incremental reform and getting them is better than pushing for more radical reform and ending up empty handed (or pushing for radical reform only to have it backfire and make things worse). This is a major one for me–I don’t believe in sweeping changes, and in fact I think we have a system of government intentionally designed to stymie and frustrate sweeping changes. I view this as a good thing (I have and do rant about some failures in our form of government, but the various barriers it has to sweeping changes are not one of them.) > [@](#): > > 1. Clinton is a more balanced candidate, while Sanders is more of a single issue candidate. Clinton has more experience and credibility with foreign policy, racial issues, etc. than Sanders. I’d say this is also a reason I support Clinton. Additionally–I don’t agree with Sanders on the “single issue” with which he is most identified. I think if you look at the worst actors in the run up to the 2008 financial crisis it was not actually the “Big Banks”, it was actually entities like Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns–very important financial firms but not ones that actually meet the definition of “big banks”, believe it or not. The big banks, which I think are vaguely defined but I’ll go with defining them as banks with more than a trillion dollars in assets are: JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, CitiBank. After Citi the next biggest bank is nowhere near a trillion in assets–it’s U.S. Bank at $417bn. Goldman Sachs, the much maligned investment bank is at $134bn. While I think Goldman bears less blame than several of the firms that either failed or were acquired to save them from failures (Bear, Lehman, Morgan Stanley) they bear a lot more blame than any of the “big banks” listed. The simple reality is that while the big banks did have their toes in the water, they were not the real culprits of the 2008 financial crisis. Bernie’s arguments also ignore the significant role that government policies played in creating an environment that actually incentivized the poor behavior that lead to the rogue financiers doing what they did. Additionally I think Bernie has ignored the importance of the ratings agencies, without which the culprits could not have created the asset bubble build on fraud that they did. The simplistic and incorrect view Bernie has of the particulars of the 2008 financial crisis are a major part of why I’d never support him. But also note I’m a right of center Republican, I would never seriously consider any socialist candidate. In fact Hillary is far too left for me in a perfect world, but I don’t live in a perfect world and I do not believe in wasting votes on third party candidacies or in not voting, so I view it as a binary choice between Trump/Cruz and Hlilary, and I’ll be voting for Hillary. > [@](#): > > 1. Clinton would be the first female president (I don’t have a problem with this being a motive, the fact that Obama was the first black president made him more appealing to a lot of people too). This doesn’t impact my support of Hillary at all. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/74 "2016-04-16T18:10:01Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > As a Sanders supporter, the big appeal to me is … And despite the best original intent _not_ be a “‘tell me why you support Clinton so that people can tell you why you are wrong’ thread”, down that rabbit hole the thread goes … Ah well. In any case **Wesley** , it was a good intent. And I think you may now understand why some of us think so highly of Clinton as the best person for the job and what some of us find as less attractive about Sanders as a candidate and as possible president. It is understood that you disagree. And that some of us disagree with your disagreements and we can go back and forth telling each other why the other is wrong. Thanks for the attempt to create a thread that would _not_ be another let’s each tell each other why you are wrong and perceive each other as frothing because we think differently than each other thread. It held together for a bit anyway! ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/75 "2016-04-16T18:16:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Come to think of it, GHWB was the last POTUS who had any, and McCain the last frontrunning candidate. It might be a while before we see another – we’ve reached a point where we have all-volunteer Armed Forces, a career-professional force rather limited in raw size, and most Americans do not even have any friends or relations in military service, any more, and most military personnel come from one sector of society and most important pols from quite another. > > I don’t think military experience is absolutely essential to anything the Commander in Chief does – he’s supposed to defer to the Joint Chiefs’ expertise on strategic matters anyway, and no POTUS since Washington has, as POTUS, commanded troops in the field (and that was only in the Whiskey Rebellion, a nonwar) – but, at least a POTUS who has done military service is capable of seeing things from an actual soldier’s POV. > > In college I once took classes with a conservative Government/PolySci prof who insisted America still needed a draft – for political purposes, not military – so that we should have an Army of people who don’t like it and can’t wait to get out of it, and a civilian citizenry of people who have been there and really know what service is like. He had a point. A conscript Army is a citizens’ army. A professional Army is practically a mercenary army, and a mercenary army is potentially dangerous to any state it serves. The Roman Republic was doomed from the moment Gaius Marius started recruiting from the Head Count and paying salaries to legionaries. Yeah, historically (like up until the early 20th century or so) the military upper leadership was also generally the elites of society. This was true back to Rome and true of most of the history of Europe as well–albeit in Europe the upper military leadership was typically nobility but not royalty (aside from the rare King who was also a good military leader in his own right), and often they were non-heir sons who were sent off to lead armies so they didn’t sit at home sulking too much about not inheriting the ancestral estates. I’d say around the time Eisenhower was going through West Point is when you started to see a shift in the type of families whose sons went to the academies and ultimately high military office. Eisenhower himself was of generally middle class background, and while a few of the guys who had careers around the same time as him (such as Patton) came from more patrician upbringing his less-connected, middle income background was definitely the standard background for most generals of the 20th century. I think too the 20th century saw the first time when being of high rank in the military also was a completely full time job, aside from periods of outright war many of the higher ranking officers of the 19th century spent significant time away from the military to attend to personal affairs, business interests and etc. It is much easier to build a base of political involvement and support in those ventures, when you’re actively engaged in your military job it is much more difficult. Also, since the end of WWII it’s been largely expected that military leaders be politically neutral, and not seem to endorse or be endorsed by one party or one side. That too I think has limited and will limit the ability of top generals to break into politics like they once did. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/76 "2016-04-16T18:26:23Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > As a Sanders supporter, the big appeal to me is that Sanders moves the [overton window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) to the left, and he is signaling to the democratic party that they cannot take their base for granted like they have in the past. For years the GOP has actually listened to their base, for fear their base will either sit out or primary them from the right. The GOP is terrified of their base, The democratic party has never had to worry about that. As a result the democrats could give speeches talking about progressive values, and then when in office choosing corporate centrism instead because they were comfortable in the knowledge that progressive democratic voters were too disorganized, lazy or placated to actually stand up for their beliefs. I’m not remotely a leftist, but I’ll say that I think this effect is exaggerated. Because I see no reason to believe it will be lasting, particularly because his support is made up of a lot of people who historically have very short attention spans when it comes to politics. I do think on many issues the country will continue to move leftward–as it has done under Obama and as it will do going forward regardless of who is President. On social issues I actually think a Republican Presidency with a social conservative firebrand like Cruz could see an extreme hastening of public opposition to social conservatism. But here’s the thing, as a guy who will never vote for a social dem (I’d be more of a Christian Dem type in terms of European politics), the worst thing about Sanders if I was a progressive is that he’s using leftist rhetoric from the 60s. Europe had people who used that rhetoric in the 60s too–and they actually largely changed the political system there and won elections. What has happened since is those leftists have “grown up”, they’ve realized some of their more “pie in the sky” ideas actually didn’t work, and almost all of the left parties of Europe are much more favorable to business than Bernie is. Many of them have also taken part in reform of entitlement systems when it turned out the ones they built were just not sustainable. By advocating for an “immature” form of leftism I think Sanders hurts the cause, he’s correct that Europe has done okay with social democrats in power, but they’ve done so because once they actually attained power they changed with the times and in response to how things worked out there, Bernie appears to have adopted their ideals in the 1960s and has never paid attention to what happened afterward. > [@](#): > > But his big appeal is his affect on the national narrative and the sense of fear he is inflicting on the democratic party which is used to being able to ignore progressive voices or to placate them with empty promises, knowing full well they could just choose corporate interests after being elected without facing repercussions. I think this is dangerous rhetoric because it’s the same thing the Tea Party uses. As a life long Republican let me assure you that a rabid wing of your party, that requires “ideological purity” or bust, who eschews compromise, is bad for your party. You should be happy, not unhappy, that the progressive wing of the party is not so organized or structured. I also think you’re frankly wrong that Democrats once elected just “choose corporate interests.” I think you ignore that they choose a “balance of interests” and that often times there is tremendous overlap between corporate interests and the interests of most Americans who work for corporations. > [@](#): > > I used to make posts several years ago talking about how the progressives needed something like a tea party movement, a movement of activists who let the party establishment know they weren’t going to be ignored anymore. The Sanders campaign is the beginning of that movement (and it is far more effective and organized than occupy wall street). It is more organized than OWS, which was not organized at all. But it’s not that organized, and certainly not built to last. The biggest problem is Bernie is actually very egotistical and very unwilling to share attention or power. In his long career in Congress he’s never significantly aided or worked with any progressives, instead choosing to make a name for himself by being that “firebrand socialist from Vermont”, largely unaccountable to anything else because Vermonters were happy to keep reelecting him. In this very election Bernie has been notoriously unwilling to do much of anything for progressive candidates at any level, he’s entirely about his own efforts. He’s a 74 year old man, a movement that is based solely on him and not about building up multiple independent power centers is not sustainable. Part of why the Tea Party was able to succeed in putting 40 odd people in Congress is because it was a movement about ideas (bad ones, but still ideas) and not about one person. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/77 "2016-04-16T18:36:04Z")
> [@DerekMichaels00](#): > > 1. I am very concerned about the far-left lurch the base of the party has undertaken. The Clintons can and will stop it. How? That lurch did not happen just because Sanders is a such a good agitator. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/78 "2016-04-16T18:39:46Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Which is another reason that “the Party” isn’t too worried about the millennials becoming a huge part of the demographic - as they get older - as a population - they will likely move to a more economic centrist position. Well, I don’t know about that. We’re not talking about Boomer hippies who eventually found out they had to work for a living and then found out they could actually do that and make good money; times have changed, the economy has changed, and now we’re talking about a generation that, in its 30s, will still be struggling with the same problems that radicalized them in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/79 "2016-04-16T18:50:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, I don’t know about that. We’re not talking about Boomer hippies who eventually found out they had to work for a living and then found out they could actually do that and make good money; times have changed, the economy has changed, and now we’re talking about a generation that, in its 30s, will still be struggling with the same problems that radicalized them in the first place. Boomer hippies faced the recession in the 1970s - when they were in their 30s. I remember that one. It was horrifying. I don’t think today is much different than the yesterdays and its short sighted to think it is. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318/80 "2016-04-16T19:02:28Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Boomer hippies faced the recession in the 1970s - when they were in their 30s. I remember that one. It was horrifying. I don’t think today is much different than the yesterdays and its short sighted to think it is. Yeah, the latest generations have never had to wait in gas lines. But as far as an existential threat, I’d have to say that last decade’s financial crisis has it all over the '70’s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-supporters-why-do-you-prefer-hillary-in-the-primary/752318.md?page=5)