Because he signed up to run as a Democrat, as I said. Then he got the other things you talked about because he got the votes.
And saying that the people of the party should not have been able to vote for him is frankly anti-democratic. There are Democrats who support him, and they have every right to do so.
And, frankly, if not for Sanders, a whole lot of people would not be voting at all. Energizing the progressive base is important. Sure, a small part of them may not vote if Sanders isn’t the nominee. And some were never going to vote anyways. But more will than would have if they hadn’t had a candidate to back.
So not only does what you say fail on a right/wrong scale, it fails on a practical scale. Sanders is performing exactly the role that a more extreme candidate is supposed to. As long as your party is functional, they won’t be the nominee, but they will move the Overton window. As Sanders has.
I didn’t say you chose to hate him when he came on the scene. I said you chose to hate him. My bet is that it’s when it actually started looking like he might have a chance.
Your complaints all seem to boil down to “He didn’t let Clinton walk through the nomination.He’s actually putting up a fight. He has supporters who don’t like Clinton.”
And don’t kid yourself, BTW. No one stayed out of the race because they were loyal to the party and wanted to let Clinton win. They stayed out because they thought Clinton would win, and thus running would hurt them politically. Sanders doesn’t have that issue. He’s a long term senator with no bigger aspirations.
That’s it. That’s why he ran against Clinton. That’s why he won’t concede to Clinton until he has to. And there’s nothing at all wrong with that. It’s how politics works.
OTOH, progressives lined up behind Obama as the hope-and-change candidate in 2008, and, apart from the ACA and some not-too-horrible SCOTUS appointments, what did they get out of it? Even if he had not had to face such insane Pub obstructionism, they would not have gotten much more than that. Can’t you understand their frustration with the Establishment?
Sure. It’s frustrating to just make a wish and not have it come true. For a four year old.
I also understand how futile mere frustration is, compared with policy-based (not personality-based) activism at the grass roots on a broad front. It’s frustrating to just make a wish and not have it come true.
No, I have already posted here before I will not ever vote for Hillary, as I wouldn’t vote for anyone that voted for the Iraq war. I do wonder how that makes me a ‘naive unserious child’ considering the rest of the candidates are all pro-war, disqualifying them from my vote. You vote your conscious and I’ll vote mine.
Also considering superdelegates like that lovely woman in AK are saying they will vote Hillary no matter WHAT the electorate wants, the Democratic machine is trying as hard as they can to disenfranchise people my age from the process. I’ve yet to hear status quo dems even address how there is room in the Democratic party for people like myself. Not being Republicans is not good enough.
I’m sure you’re right, but the rules should be changed.
I was not alive then. I would not have been appalled by either of those things, but I did take Hillary’s side when everyone gasped at her pointing out that LBJ and Congress deserve at least as much credit for the civil rights legislation that ensued.
Thought so.
I absolutely agree that this is the trend, one I consider very lamentable.
And I would argue that talk about “holding my nose and voting for the lesser evil” (cf. LHOD) is in itself a lesser evil (compared to not voting, voting Republican, or voting Green), but an evil nonetheless.
But we’re talking about e-day voting choices here, not activism. And we’re also talking about wishes a lot more important and valid than getting a pony.
*There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy.
*Those with only a molecule of doubt towards Big Sister should recognise their heinous evil; and engage in a rigorous self-criticism session until they are able to turn themselves in for thought-crime.
You had your vote. How are you disenfranchised? One superdelegate saying she’ll vote her conscious threatens that, when the vast majority will go with who gets the majority of the pledged delegates (which in a 2 person race will be more than enough to secure nomination)?
Though… I’d have to think that the Republicans wish they had a superdelegate system this year (and yes, they would be using it undemocratic ways, but I have a feeling most people wouldn’t care too much… except Trump fans).
But in politics, most of the time when people ask you to make deicisions based on loyalty, they are trying to trick you into making decisions that go aganst your own interests. And one has the suspicion that if the shoe were on the other foot … if THEY were being asked to decide on the basis of loyalty, there would be none. This is especially applicable to the One Percent and their representatives here on Earth.
Depends. If they’re appealing to your loyalty to an *institution *rather than its ideals, yes. But not if they’re asking you to make your decisions based on expected real-world results.
And there’s the rub … the centrists don’t WANT to earn the loyalty of progressives. They want to win, and they want it to be “winner take all.” The centrists are so accustomed to having uncontested power over the Democratic Party that the prospect of having to stick a few progressive planks in their platform leaves them angry and frustrated. Well, it’s more than that. To a certain extent, the views of progressives and centrists are diametrically opposed. The centrists LURVE money in politics, because they make a lot of money that way. Tons, way more than their paltry salaries. Look at the Clintons themselves! The progressives want money OUT of politics. The centrists also love Wall Street, their major sources of all that money that they love so much. The progressives think Wall Street needs to be heavily regulated and taxed. Anathema! cry the centrists. The progressives also want to avoid war in the Middle East wherever possible. Hillary Clinton is a hawk.
These are important, fundamental differences between the two Democratic factions. I don’t know if they are reconcilable. So you see, when you ask progressive voters to vote for Hillary on the basis of “loyalty” you are asking a lot.
And that’s my issue. I think that when you vote in the primary, you have cast your GE ballot ethically for whomever the party selects all the way down the ballot. Don’t like it, don’t vote in the primary. Because that’s party politics. And that’s what party loyalty is.
And I’m not a Democrat and therefore don’t participate in the Minnesota Caucus because the DFL puts forward some darn crazy candidates and the Republicans here have in the past (though not currently) been quite reasonable (Al Quie and Arnie Carlson are my two favorite Minnesota Governors in my life - both Republicans of the reasonable brand)
I realize that my brand of political ethics is a little strange - but coming from where I do, Sanders is offensive and many of his supporters are as well.