# How likely is it that a Trump wins helps progressive goal more than a Clinton win? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 26, 2016, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209 "2016-03-26T05:06:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/61 "2016-03-28T20:39:28Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I get that Sanders voters identify with his ideas, but that doesn’t mean that he would necessarily do the best job. President Sanders can propose anything he wants; he still has to work with 535 other congressmen coming from Gerrymandered districts. As we’re seeing with Obama’s court nomination fight and as we’ve seen with Obama’s other proposals, the opposition doesn’t have to work with him, and the opposition will feel emboldened if they suspect the public doesn’t share his agenda. Precisely. I can think of no issues that Sanders and Clinton differ on that actually have any chance of getting through congress. Sanders promising free tuition and single payer healthcare is a reasonable as Republicans congressmen promising to repeal Obamacare, outlaw abortion and dismantle the department of education. Its possible to bring about a progressive revolution but its got to start from the ground up. Just replacing the guy at the top isn’t going to do much unless he can get broad support from down below. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/62 "2016-03-28T21:47:46Z")
> [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > How is Sanders working to change that? This is a genuine question. Is he getting Democrats to run in those districts? The 50 state strategy. Sanders has field offices in every state, and they plan to stay, win or lose. There are some “Sandernista” candidates running down ticket this year, and hopefully there will be more in place for the mid term election. Similar to what Obama did with OFA, except Obama handed it over to the party and they squandered it. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Its possible to bring about a progressive revolution but its got to start from the ground up. Just replacing the guy at the top isn’t going to do much unless he can get broad support from down below. This would have been an opportunity to have both. See above. Having a President like Sanders would be a transparent bully pulpit for progressive issues, and issues that have broad bi-partisan support. Neoliberals like Clinton have no respect for the grassroots, so the fight will be much tougher. They will do everything they can to co-opt and/or sideline the movement, much like they did with OFA. The main reason I’m still involved is the hope that Sanders won’t succumb to handing over reigns the way Obama did. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/63 "2016-03-30T12:57:40Z")
> [@camille](#): > > This would have been an opportunity to have both. See above. Having a President like Sanders would be a transparent bully pulpit for progressive issues, and issues that have broad bi-partisan support. No, having a president like Sanders would hurt the progressive movement because he would get legislation stalled and be vulnerable to claims that he’s a do-nothing, and that he’s not working with congress. The problem you have is that the majority of Americans are, at best, highly uncertain and skeptical of Sanders ideas. They like his bashing of corporate America, but Sanders is proposing that Americans accept higher taxation in exchange for public schemes that have never been tried in this country before. In the minds of voters, that’s a great leap, whether you like to acknowledge that or not. He would quickly look inept. You all would quickly stomp your feet and whine about the awful corporate media, but so what? It is what it is. The only way that kind of radical change happens is if the entire system itself collapses and you have a clear and compelling mandate for change. Short of that, Sanders would look inept and incompetent. And the more he pushed for these ideas, the dumber he would look. And he would not only threaten to lose the White House, he would threaten a backlash that would result in a possible republican majority or even a super majority, effectively handing over the government to a conservative congress that controls the legislative agenda. > [@camille](#): > > Neoliberals like Clinton have no respect for the grassroots, so the fight will be much tougher. They will do everything they can to co-opt and/or sideline the movement, much like they did with OFA. They have no respect for rigid idealism because they know it doesn’t work. Clinton knows it doesn’t work because she was there when her husband and democrats took the worst election night beat-down in 40 years when the GOP took over in 1994. That was directly the result of her pushing for ideas that the public hadn’t been prepared for. > [@camille](#): > > The main reason I’m still involved is the hope that Sanders won’t succumb to handing over reigns the way Obama did. Handing over the reigns? I guess you forget that Obama had a choice between either swallowing some of his campaign rhetoric and working with these devils in congress or letting unemployment benefits run out for millions of the most vulnerable people, a choice between making a budget compromise or letting the Treasury’s credit rating go to hell, a choice between dealing with big banks or letting the entire financial system collapse, a choice between dealing with political forces you don’t like or letting the republicans control all the branches of the government. Sanders voters only want to look at the outcome and they don’t want to acknowledge all of the variables and factors at play. They’re guilty of the same kind of simplistic, emotional, and irrational thinking that they accuse Trump voters of giving into. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/64 "2016-03-30T17:40:32Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Sanders voters only want to look at the outcome and they don’t want to acknowledge all of the variables and factors at play. They’re guilty of the same kind of simplistic, emotional, and irrational thinking that they accuse Trump voters of giving into. You have to remember that the majority of them are very young; for many this is their first time voting, and idealism is necessarily outreaching realism. The Trump voters, in general, just have no excuse. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/65 "2016-03-30T20:08:02Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > No, having a president like Sanders would hurt the progressive movement because he would get legislation stalled and be vulnerable to claims that he’s a do-nothing, and that he’s not working with congress. The problem you have is that the majority of Americans are, at best, highly uncertain and skeptical of Sanders ideas. They like his bashing of corporate America, but Sanders is proposing that Americans accept higher taxation in exchange for public schemes that have never been tried in this country before. In the minds of voters, that’s a great leap, whether you like to acknowledge that or not. He would quickly look inept. You all would quickly stomp your feet and whine about the awful corporate media, but so what? It is what it is. The only way that kind of radical change happens is if the entire system itself collapses and you have a clear and compelling mandate for change. Short of that, Sanders would look inept and incompetent. And the more he pushed for these ideas, the dumber he would look. And he would not only threaten to lose the White House, he would threaten a backlash that would result in a possible republican majority or even a super majority, effectively handing over the government to a conservative congress that controls the legislative agenda. > > They have no respect for rigid idealism because they know it doesn’t work. Clinton knows it doesn’t work because she was there when her husband and democrats took the worst election night beat-down in 40 years when the GOP took over in 1994. That was directly the result of her pushing for ideas that the public hadn’t been prepared for. > > Handing over the reigns? I guess you forget that Obama had a choice between either swallowing some of his campaign rhetoric and working with these devils in congress or letting unemployment benefits run out for millions of the most vulnerable people, a choice between making a budget compromise or letting the Treasury’s credit rating go to hell, a choice between dealing with big banks or letting the entire financial system collapse, a choice between dealing with political forces you don’t like or letting the republicans control all the branches of the government. Sanders voters only want to look at the outcome and they don’t want to acknowledge all of the variables and factors at play. They’re guilty of the same kind of simplistic, emotional, and irrational thinking that they accuse Trump voters of giving into. Your assertions don’t match reality, and you are not even responding to what I’m speaking to. It looks like you are using my posts as a jump off for cliched Clinton talking points, and a lot of them are recycled from HRC’s 2008 campaign against Obama. I remember them because I was working for OFA at the time. Bring some cites and respond to what I’m actually saying, or peddle your wares elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/66 "2016-05-07T00:36:35Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > I’ll add my voice to this as well. A LOT of people on the left were very recently calling George W. Bush one of the worst Presidents of all time (bottom 5 at least). So how in the world is it now an example of the center crying wolf that didn’t occur - it should be a major warning call… and it was only 16 years ago! “Well, the country’s still here, isn’t it?” Yeah, I don’t get it either. ETA: I didn’t realize I was bumping my own thread! But I think, as we get closer to nominating someone for the Democrats, this becomes a more relevant question than ever. Personally, I think the majority of Sanders’ voters do believe in his principles, and thus will end up voting for Clinton, even if reluctantly. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/67 "2016-05-07T02:16:28Z")
Progressives who think they can vote to damage the Democratic Party as a means to teach them a lesson are foolish if they think that will force the party left. If the Democratic Party can’t count on liberal votes they will go searching for conservative ones by offering more conservative policies. Voting Nader didn’t move the party left it moved the party right. The Democrats want liberal votes but they aren’t going to chase moving goal posts to get them. The people saying Clinton isn’t liberal enough to vote for or that she’s just like a Republican are out of their minds. The Democrats can never win those peoples votes, it’s a fools errand to even try to get them. Sanders has done his job he’s put more liberal policies on the Democratic radar, take that victory and work on the future. This all or nothing, no compromises is the start of a left wing tea party, those people should be nipped in the bud, all they will do is bring policy to a grinding halt. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/68 "2016-05-07T02:34:31Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Progressives who think they can vote to damage the Democratic Party as a means to teach them a lesson are foolish if they think that will force the party left. > > If the Democratic Party can’t count on liberal votes they will go searching for conservative ones by offering more conservative policies. > > Voting Nader didn’t move the party left it moved the party right. Which is why Sanders is working within the party instead of mounting a moronic third-party bid like Nader did. > [@](#): > > The Democrats want liberal votes but they aren’t going to chase moving goal posts to get them. The people saying Clinton isn’t liberal enough to vote for or that she’s just like a Republican are out of their minds. The Democrats can never win those peoples votes, it’s a fools errand to even try to get them. Sure they can and they are trying. Why is Hillary Clinton talking about incarceration reform? Why is she rolling out more plans for Wall Street regulation? Why is she supporting bids for higher minimum wage? > [@](#): > > Sanders has done his job he’s put more liberal policies on the Democratic radar, take that victory and work on the future. This all or nothing, no compromises is the start of a left wing tea party, those people should be nipped in the bud, all they will do is bring policy to a grinding halt. There is nothing good in compromising for the sake of compromise. The fact is we _need_ a left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party that will be equally militant in advance the popular interest as the Tea Party is in advancing that of Capital. The Tea Party doesn’t care whether you are centrist Clintonites or socialists-they will not compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/69 "2016-05-07T02:46:10Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > . . . The fact is we _need_ a left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party that will be equally militant in advance the popular interest as the Tea Party is in advancing that of Capital. The Tea Party doesn’t care whether you are centrist Clintonites or socialists-they will not compromise. I must strongly disagree. Yes, we need ardent liberals who have strong liberal opinions, but we need them within the tent, not outside it threatening to burn it down. The Tea Party conservatives have taken the position of shutting down the government and refusing to increase the debt limit (refusing to pay our bills.) The last thing on earth we need is a liberal wing of the Democratic Party that is similarly self-destructive. There’s also a big difference: the Tea Party wanted to prevent things from happening. They could simply vote no, and have the effect they want. That doesn’t work if you have a constructive agenda. Voting no won’t expand health care; voting no won’t increase the minimum wage; voting no won’t create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. (They might have the effect of obstructing trade deals, but that’s just about the only negative item on the agenda of the new left wing.) ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/70 "2016-05-07T02:48:32Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > There is nothing good in compromising for the sake of compromise. The fact is we _need_ a left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party that will be equally militant in advance the popular interest as the Tea Party is in advancing that of Capital. The Tea Party doesn’t care whether you are centrist Clintonites or socialists-they will not compromise. It’s not compromising for the sake of compromise. It’s compromise for the sake of getting things done. The Tea party has been great at moving the RNC right. As a result what meaningful legislation have they passed? They’ve done nothing but create gridlock. If the liberal Democrats insist on liberal policy no compromise, the Democrats will have no ability to actually pass legislation. A compromise is better than nothing. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209/71 "2016-05-07T04:09:44Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Those who think there’s no difference between the two parties are ignorant. Tell it to the Iraqis or the El Salvadorians. What do you say to people in Honduras? On foreign policy specifically, Hillary is much, much closer to a Nixon or a Bush than to much of the Democrat base. > [@](#): > > 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. Same old straw man. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-likely-is-it-that-a-trump-wins-helps-progressive-goal-more-than-a-clinton-win/750209.md?page=3)