The Clinton supporters I know would all vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination. As for why the Democrats “did nothing” when they “had power” for two years after the 2008 election, it’s not because they didn’t want to do anything, it’s because they didn’t have enough power. If the Senate had had say, 65 or even 70 Democrats rather than the 59 we ended up with, I think they would have been passing all kinds of progressive legislation. It’s not the Democrats fault this didn’t happen. I blame, in part, the liberals who stayed home when Republicans won close Senate races in the six years prior to 2008, including Mitch McConnel himself in 2008. If those Republicans had lost, I think it’s likely we would probably have universal health care by now.
Even if both parties are controlled by an oligarchy, I would prefer the oligarchs to be those who actually have the people’s well being at heart. I think choosing between oligarchs like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates vs. oligarchs like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson is an easy choice, for me at least. One group cares about the people, the other group only cares about themselves (or at least that’s the impression I get of these particular individuals).
Here’s the problem I see with this position: nothing happens in a vacuum. A House or a Senate majority means more than just having 51% of the votes in Congress - the majorities affect who heads up Congressional committees. Those people can kill a bill without it even going to a vote. (Not with impunity, of course, there’s still a full committee.) The President appoints a whole host of executive and judicial positions, and only some of them require Congressional approval.
I’m not as convinced as you that the system is broken, but it’s so entrenched at every level that you have to play it using the rules we have. Not playing isn’t a good option, whether you do that by voting for fringe candidates or not voting at all. The lesser of two evils is still the best choice you’ve got.
How about a compromise:
If you live in Ohio or Virginia (i.e, a swing state), 15 months from now down a double shot of Scotch, hold your nose and vote for Hillary. No matter how horrid you may find her, we can almost all agree we’d rather have her in the Oval Office than Cruz or ¡¡@##!!.
If you live in one of the 45 states whose Presidential votes are irrelevant anyway, vote for a Greeno or a Pinko or somebody. It’s not true that such votes are just wasted. The top 3 candidates in the 2008 election split the vote 53% - 46% - 0.6%. Treasure the message that might be sent if the vote split 45% - 43% - 12% !
(Disclaimer: I’ve still never forgiven the Floridans who voted for Nader instead of the (Greener) Gore.)
It’s not Sanders intent to ‘split the vote’ nor his function.
The DNC has basically hired Bernie as this election’s ‘sheepdog’. They use one every election.
Bernie’s job is to corral as many radical Lefties as he can and hold them until they are needed on nomination night for whoever the DNC figures has the best chance against Trump.
Then Bernie can go back home and put another greenhouse gas producing log on the fire.
Good old Bernie has long ago figured out how to keep getting elected. He gets just enough votes from the Lefties to keep his job.
Cite?