As with your Tweedledum position, it’s a case of 'damn what voters want, they will to support whom we say they shall support’; and I’m more than certain that the Keepers of the GOP will shudderingly but enthusiastically unlock the Greater Cages and let out any of the creatures to destroy the Donald.
Even those whose minds hang over the delicate balance between dribbling chaos and raving lunacy.
I have no idea what you mean. Can you explicate?
Btw, I don’t think anyone who describes the USA as “the greatest democracy in the world” means it as “the democracy which is the most democratic, with the best and most representative election system”. In fact, that would be a pretty ridiculous claim to make, given that a recent presidential election was won by the person receiving fewer votes.
Well, the OP seriously mischaracterized Sanders’s words. And we can either have the tedious debate where we show that mischaracterization, or we can have the divorced-from-reality debate where we stipulate the OP is correct.
If we’re doing the latter, I’d like to have a debate around how dare Clinton threaten to put Sanders supporters in reeducation camps, is that really what a Democratic primary should be like?
What if his (or Any Voter’s) position is the same vis-à-vis Trump?
Mathematically, an uncast vote is half as powerful as a vote for an opponent.
Easiest to see with eleven people. Six voting for Clinton, five for Trump. Trump wins.
If one person switches to Trump, Trump wins.
If two Clinton supporters don’t vote, Trump wins.
So if you want to help Trump win, you can vote for him–or you can fail to vote for Clinton. Voting for him is the best thing to do, failing to vote for Clinton is half as powerful.
It’s why I encourage folks who support Sanders not to lock themselves into a “not voting” position, unless they genuinely like Trump better than Clinton, in which case I’m happy to get them to take that position.
A corollary is that persuading someone to vote for Trump is bad, but persuading someone not to vote (say, by treating them like shit) is half as bad. It’s why I think that the Clinton supporters–far from all Clinton supporters, just the specific ones–who heap abuse on Sanders voters are so misguided; the likeliest outcome of their abuse is that they’ll alienate young progressives from the Democratic party, which can have ramifications literally for generations to come. Young voters who are excited now? We need to figure out a way to engage them in the process, turn them into lifelong voters who will work to transform the Democrat party into a true tool for progressivism.
If we alienate them, we risk a generation of voters who declare a pox on both houses and don’t prioritize voting–and that’s half as powerful as creating a generation of Republican voters.
President Barack Obama in the New York Times, 1/8/2016. Remarkable, yes, but not extortion. I didn’t vote for Bernie, but I applaud him for dragging Hillary to the left.
FWIW you are stating clearly incorrect statements here. Perhaps you just misunderstood?
The op claimed the loser cannot dictate what the winner does and that there is little precedent for one even trying to, although a very few have tried, unsuccessfully, before.
Yes a losing candidate can try to dictate, try to “set terms for the ways in which he will direct his supporters to switch their support to his opponent” (your words) but there are rare examples of any one doing so as a public demand and no record I am aware of of any done so that have succeeded.
Also FWIW Chuck Todd understood what he said the same way as Slacker, P.S. Carpenter, I did, and asked Sanders, several times directly, if there were in fact conditions for his support in the case of his not being the nominee.
He stated that he did not mean that to say that there were conditions and would not state that there were not be. Taking a page from Cruz’s playbook who has been answering questions about his support if Trump wins with “Trump will not be the nominee.” Sanders left it this time with “We have a path to victory. We are going to win this nomination process.”
Wait, so your problem is that a candidate who’s still in the race is refusing to describe what his concession will look like?
Sanders is still in the race. And he’s also an irascible sonofabitch. He has no interest in discussing shit like what his concession is gonna look like. That’s a ridiculous thing to get upset about, and I doubt you’d be similarly upset if the situation were reversed and Clinton refused to throw her support behind Sanders before Sanders won.
Focus on the issues, ferchrissake, not fripperous bullshit like this.
Edit: Holy shit. I just read the Chuck Todd interview excerpt. Here it is, paraphrased:
Chuck Todd: I’d like to ask a horse-race politics question.
Sanders: No, let’s talk about the issues.
CT: But the politics question!
Sanders: Here are the important issues!
CT: BUT POLITICS!
Sanders: GODDAMMIT I TALK ISSUES!
:eek: Is that a wink-nudge that you have figured out we know each other on Facebook, or just a really odd coincidence?
That’s about right. And I hate interview subjects who do that. They should not be surprised or offended if they’re not invited back. Chuck Todd runs a really awesome show, but it bogs down when people start spouting their stump speech. So boring and annoying. Life is way too short to have to hear Bernie prattle on for the umpteenth time about how “we started off at 2% in the polls…$27…building a movement”, blah blah blah. :smack:
But that would be a horse-race, politics answer.
Bernie Sanders is a non-violent political revolutionary. He only caucused with the Congressional democrats because of the two-party system in Congress. He only became a Democrat to run for President. There’s nothing dishonorable about changing your party, or changing back to independent.
As for stopping Trump, I wonder how the Marxist theoreticians, including Lenin and Trotsky, that Bernie read as a young man would look at it. Perhaps they would look at it this way: Trump or Cruz would legitimize having a extremist president, and thus increase the chances of the Democrats nominating a socialist next time, or even of something more dramatic. From a revolutionary standpoint, the superiority of Clinton to Trump (or Cruz) is thus non-obvious.
Since it’s not even clear, from his POV, that Bernie should endorse Clinton at all, why not hold out for some ideological benefit?
Now, Bernie’s supporters are unlikely to be revolutionaries. When they hear him use the word revolution, they probably think it is a metaphor. So, as has been said by others here, Sanders endorsing Clinton may not sway many votes.
You are moving the goalposts. Is that deliberate?
I quoted a specific statement, not in the OP, but in a subsequent post, and responded explicitly to that. I made no comment about the success or failure of such actions. I pointed out that a specific claim, (one contradicted by another statement in the same post), was not accurate and that expressing hostility toward other posters over the issue indicated a need for better understanding.
A very odd and to my read extremely inaccurate paraphrase LOHD.
But no my posting it was mostly giving Sanders some slack as he explicitly was walking back from the understanding that Chuck Todd, I, and others had of what he said.
Would I expect Clinton if asked to answer similarly to how I had hypothetical-Sanders answer in post #61? Yes, of course. I would be shocked and horribly disappointed if Clinton answered at any point with anything other than
Hypothetical Clinton: I expect to win the nomination Chuck but of course I would without reservation support and work for the successful election of Senator Sanders if he was the chosen nominee of our party. This election is not about me. It is about the future of this country. I think it is important to realize Senator Sanders and I have our differences and I think I can actually better break down the barriers that stand in our way and give all of us the ladders we need, but we both want to take the country in the same direction, and that direction is in sharp contrast to the fear and divisiveness of the GOP. This country needs a Democratic President, Chuck. And again, I hope to have the honor of being that President.
Answering
Hypothetical Clinton: I cannot say whether or not I would encourage those who support me to support Senator Sanders if he was the nominee.
Let alone making demands that her support would be contingent on his adopting her positions as his own?
I would pillory her.
You wouldn’t?
That’s not how politicians speak, midrace.
He wasn’t threatening, he was basically just answering a softball question Cenk set up for him. It was an open invitation to give his stump speech. Which he did. Big deal. Internet reporters expend a ton of energy creating stories where there are none, but I guess that’s what brings in the eyeballs.
The thing that caught my attention was from slightly before where Sanders attempted to tar Clinton with being the darling of the establishment. As I think was already similarly stated in this thread, Sanders completely ignored Clinton’s popularity among Latino and African Americans and older people in general in favor of some more disparaging label like ‘establishment’ or ‘conservative’. It looked clumsy and tactless.
Yet around all that establishment talk he discussed improvements to the Democratic party. Since that’s the view he takes of his efforts, then I am sure he will support Clinton when the time comes. It’s best to be completely unconcerned about Sanders’ statements of support until after he concedes the election. He still views himself as a viable candidate, as he stressed, and he believes he can win, as he stressed, and nothing valuable will come of asking a politician in the middle of a campaign about their eventual loss.
This, I think, is a very fair criticism of Sanders. Clinton may have a weakness in her close ties to Wall Street, but she also has a strength in her close ties to minority communities. To the extent that her alliances are an issue, they’re both a weakness and a strength. I do wish Sanders would spend a lot less time grousing at Clinton and even more time hammering home the economic issues.
Nicely written Hypothetical Clinton, DSeid.
I think I actually agree with almost everything in your post, except whether this is or is not dishonorable. However, that’s a matter of opinion. But let me turn it around. From the Democratic Party’s point of view, should they aid and abet this kind of blatant parasitism?
Or if that’s too loaded a word, why should they help someone accomplish their revolutionary aims, when that person is not interested in building the party? I’m thinking specifically of their letting him have access to all that data. Just absolute mountains of it, arduously gathered by people like me who really do support the party year in, and year out. If you follow 538 and listen to their podcast, you will know how significant this huge trove of data is. For that matter, the Sanders campaign’s swiftly filing a lawsuit to regain access to it tells you everything you need to know.
If the DNC had said okay, you can obviously register for the primaries and we will let you in the debates if you clear polling thresholds, but did not give access to the data, he would be nowhere near where he is now.
Actually it was pretty close to how both of them were talking early race and to Clinton’s ongoing tone.
The recurring mantra was for each of them to comment like this: “… we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week. …” Until the Michigan debate both would echo whichever one said that first. In the Flint debate Clinton said that (exactly that) and Sanders responded with a clear intimation that Clinton is bought by a corrupt campaign finance system …
It exactly how smart politicians speak midrace. The only time there has been a question about the losing candidate supporting the winner that I can recall has been in this age of Trump. Oh open questions about how full throated that support would be. Clinton’s vigorous work on Obama’s behalf to heal the rifts was admittedly above and beyond.
(Thank you Slacker … credit is due to 538’s most common phrases used by the candidates on each :))
The first sentence of your hypothetical is where you were off, IMO. I very rarely hear politicians talking about their enthusiastic support for their opponent in the event of the opponent’s victory; most politicians steadfastly refuse to entertain any questions predicated on their opponents’ victory until that victory is in the bag. I can fault Sanders for some things, but refusing to answer questions like this? nope.
Discuss issues, ferchrissakes, not this fripperous bullshit.