How likely is it that a Trump wins helps progressive goal more than a Clinton win?

Okay, I thought I’d make a thread about this specific topic, since it’s come up so often in other threads.

There is a non-zero number of Sanders supporters who see absolutely no reason to support Clinton, and in fact see positives if Trump wins, figuring that a Democratic loss and disaster (as they see it) of a Trump win will advance progressive goals more than a Clinton win, which represents to them business as usual that will only extend the status quo.

And if they’re wrong and people suffer, well, it’s not their fault, it’s the party’s, and besides, it would’ve happened anyway with corporate puppet Clinton in office.

What do you think of this point of view, no matter what your own beliefs? I assume only leftists have this point of view because conservatives don’t generally see the system rigged in the same way as liberals.

Those who think there’s no difference between the two parties are ignorant. Tell it to the Iraqis or the El Salvadorians.

Personally, I think some of these Bernie Bros have been affected by 25 years of bogus Republican propaganda against the Clintons. Wall Street is by no means enamored with Hillary Clinton. She’s a deal cutter. If you want superficial purity, vote for Ted Cruz. To Bernie Sander’s credit, he doesn’t make these loonie arguments.

Well, to begin, it’s a given that anyone who claims a ‘typical’ point of view is trying to sell you something. I have many Democratic friends and acquaintances, and I know of not a single one who thinks that Pres. Trump will be a good thing for Dems in any way, shape, or form, including the ones who don’t support Hillary.

Granted, the circles I tend to move in are usually better-informed than a majority of the populace, so I’d say take this with a grain of salt…unlike that quoted guy.

Typical for those WITH THAT POINT OF VIEW, I meant — i.e. for those who think this way, that’s usually how I see their logic going. I made and meant no claim about what most Democrats, liberals, or progressives in general think.

Trump the candidate has virtually no advisors or political associates connected to the Washington political apparatus.

Were he to get elected, he would have to have a transition team, which would work to staff his administration. As the elected Republican candidate, though he would undoubtedly have some quirky picks at the top level, below that he will have to rely on the Republican establishment to fill the ranks of his appointments.

Perhaps with limited exceptions where Trump has strong views, this will lead to an administration that looks substantially like prior Republican administrations, with largely mainstream Republican views.

I think people greatly overestimate the impact of the individual Presidential candidate, and underestimate the impact of the party-centered administration they must, of necessity, bring along with them.

There is no value in analyzing whether Progressivism will be served by a Trump Presidency. This logic you present is really just a rationalization for wanting to stick it to the other team.

Involvement in politics often means we adopt a party identity. I think with some people, especially younger people, defining oneself as part of a party eventually takes precedent over the values that the person identifies with.

Its a byproduct of the intense competition. Myths created to justify the emotional and physical effort that goes into beating the other team - the essential purity and goodness of your party and the evil and cynicism of the opponent party - keep people motivated by making their activities seem more profound than they actually are.

You see it in the rhetoric of Clinton’s support for “Wall Street” and the “fact” that she is a phony Progressive. These people have so much bought into the idea that Hillary is the enemy and those who support her are bad people that they come up with the kinds of rationalizations you see in the OP.

The quote even shows the writer knows our country’s interests would be better served by Clinton’s victory, and this is because he knows the policy positions are roughly aligned (it’s unacknowledged of course but it is there). Yet he needs to stick it to the other team because he lost so all this hyperbolic, irrational rhetoric is thrown in. He wants to stick it to everyone and doesn’t have a single good reason other than he’s angry because he is a loser. He’s a perfect Trump supporter.

The best time to start anything is always right now. Electing Trump now might help trigger a progressive revolution in the future. Electing either Democrat will start it now.

Just so that I understand this… You’re asking us to debate the musings of some anonymous poster on Reddit who uses the term “fascism”, non-ironically, and clearly has no idea what it means.

Is that right? You know, there is a reason most of us are here are not on Reddit.

There are a significant number of people who think the same thing. I’ve seen the statistic that 33% of Sanders supporters say they won’t vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee, and some might have other reasons, but a lot of have the same thinking. Hopefully a lot are bluffing, or will change their mind.

I think it’s extremely callous. From what I’ve seen, it’s a lot more straight white guys making this argument than immigrants, Muslims, LGBT people, women, and others who would be more immediately harmed by a Trump presidency and the Supreme Court nominations he could make. People who want a Trump presidency in order for the country to burn and a revolution to start are mostly wiling to sacrifice others so that things will be better for them in the long term.

Yeah. It’s obvious that these “my way or the highway” deadenders don’t think that THEY’RE going to suffer under a Trump presidency.

I heard that line from Nader supporters sixteen years ago. Remind me how that worked out for us?

Here’s my reaction to the Bernie Bros and rabidly enthusiastic Bernie supporters. Start watching something other than YouTube videos and read something other than Demo Underground, and start reading about the history of the 1990s a little.

First of all, Hillary Clinton actually does have established progressive credentials. She and her husband introduced legislation to change our healthcare system, which was shot down in congress. That effort came almost two decades before Obamacare. It failed but she tried. She and her husband also supported the Brady Bill, which passed. Both pieces of legislation, however, led to a wave of right wing propaganda and a republican victory in 1994. The Clintons paid a very heavy price for supporting a progressive agenda. And so did the democratic party, which brings me to my next point.

In politics, there’s a time to play offense, and there’s a time to play defense. When you lose possession of a basketball, it’s foolish to stand at one end of the court while letting the other team score on the other end. It’s the same in politics. When you lose the political football, you play defense, not offense. A lot of the Clinton votes that may have sided with republicans were defensive votes - votes that were intended to keep the moderates from bailing on the party. Bernie supporters might say that’s not a justification. I beg to differ.

As we’ve seen over the past decade, when republicans take over congress, it’s impossible for a democratic president to get anything done (other than presiding over a government that filibusters and leaves us with a downgrade of the Treasury’s credit rating). When republicans control congress and the white house, we have illegal wars, tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans, rising income inequality, budget busting deficits, and financial crises. We have Richard Clarke getting demoted and Don Rumsfeld getting promoted. We have the focus away from Osama Bin Laden and onto a once-powerful but de-fanged dictator in Iraq. When republicans take over state governments, we have voter suppression, religious manipulation of schools, crippling budget deficits, and in some states, budgets simply don’t get passed. These are pretty good reasons to play defense, I would say.

I get that Bernie Sanders supporters may not like the fact that ‘moderates’ and independents are at least somewhat occasionally sympathetic to the republican agenda, but the reality is, democrats can’t win without their support. And if democrats lose, the above is what results. And we can’t afford that. Bernie supporters may support the idea of Medicare for all, but none of that is even remotely possible until you get a solid democratic majority in the first place. But aside from that, without a solid democratic majority, not only do many pieces of good legislation not come to pass, but a lot of bad laws do pass. It is possible, over time, to persuade enough centrist voters to support a slightly more progressive agenda.

Beyond that, I just don’t think Bernie Sanders has the kind of foreign policy experience that would in any way qualify him to be president. I am actually glad that Bernie’s getting some attention. I think the country would actually benefit from exploring and co-opting at least some of his ideas. We need a strong progressive influence like him to challenge the news media to do their job. But at the end of the day, I want someone in there who’s going to get things done. Sorry hipsters, but Hillary has a much better shot at doing that than Bernie.

People who think Clinton won’t advance progressive goals may be right (although I’d disagree). But Trump (or Cruz) will move things backwards. When your progressive white knight gets elected, he’ll have to spend his or her first term working on bringing things back to the point where they’re at now. For example, would you rather start with the ACA and move forward from that or have the ACA repealed and have to start from ground zero all over again?

THANK YOU. I thought that the fact that people on this VERY BOARD discussed this or advocated this would make it clear that I was talking about more than one particular person’s beliefs, and that the quote was meant to exemplify arguments I’ve seen in more than one place from more than one person (including, again, the SDMB). Apparently not.

I’m especially interested in this topic because it DOES make a certain amount of visceral sense to say, “You want my vote? Then give me someone worth voting for; it’s not my responsibility to just accept whoever you manipulate the system to toss at me.” Yet I still think the idea that failure will sweep in a tide of popular revolution is naive at best, and the idea that “eh, if it never happens, it’s not my fault, it would’ve happened no matter what I did” to be bleak and dismissive.

But I still thought it was a discussion worth having, especially in the light of posters pointing out that Sanders seems not to have made visible movement apart from his individual campaign to advance his beliefs.

There are still political realities. When it comes down to (primarily and almost exclusively) two names on the ballot, Clinton and Trump, who do you think those Sanders supporters are going to vote for? There really isn’t another choice, other than not voting at all.

Let me see if I got this straight. Some Sanders supporters, if their man isn’t nominated, will supprt Trump because he will do much damage, hoping thereby to increase America’s lean to the left. Is that right?

I admire Sanders but doubt he could do much more than the experienced and pragmatic Hillary to advance progressive issues, especially since the House of Reps will probably remain in GOP hands even if November is an anti-Trump landslide.

Electing a wrong-headed nincompoop “to teach voters a lesson” may have emotional appeal, but I doubt it works well. It’s especially useless in the case of Trump, since Establishment Republicans will also be able to say “We told you so.” The stakes are very high; I’m afraid 4 years under Trump could be severe disaster. (He was once a moderate, albeit a stupid one, but has now embraced right-wing idiocies as part of his candidacy.)

Bernie Sanders will be appalled if the result of his presidential run is getting Donald Trump elected. So any petulant progressives who vote for Trump will be making sure that nobody like Sanders ever takes a chance on running in the future.

He could always, you know, concede the race and endorse Hillary. But it looks like he’s taking the Ralph Nader route. In essence, he’s helping Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. I suspect Ted Cruz still has a puncher’s chance and if the nation elects Cruz, God help us all. Bernie Sanders voters may not be allowed to vote in the next election the way the republitards are trying to game the system and suppress the vote.

Losing elections can be good for a party in the long run and winning can be bad for a party in the long run. One only needs to imagine that John Kerry won the 2004 election to see that.

A Trump win would be fantastic for progressives and a disaster for conservatives. A Clinton win, by contrast, would mean no Trump as President to have to live with and three straight terms with a Democrat in the White House. That would put the Republicans in fantastic shape heading into 2020 assuming a good candidate. And a good conservative President would actually do serious damage to the progressive movement.

All Trump would do is get rid of most of our illegal population, and they can’t vote anyway. Doesn’t hurt Democrats at all.

Welcome to fantasyland.