Unless hey, maybe they want Trump to win. He does appeal to much of the same sort of id, after all.
The United States is not in a revolutionary state. Assuming Bernie supporters really want a non-violent political revolution, they must hope for the government to self-destruct. That sounds like Trump. Or, it would sound like Trump, except the the the World Trade Organization and the courts, wouldn’t let him carry out the worst of his reactionary program. But, still, if you are a true revolutionary, isn’t Trump, at present, your best shot?
I realize that, in the US, the word revolution is usually used in a metaphoric or weak sense, such as when saying that a works-inside-the-system African American (or female) president would be revolutionary. But if you actually want to send the bankers, and the police, in substantial numbers, to the gulag, things first need to get a lot worse.
Is Sanders still a revolutionary, as he must have been, at age 39, when he ran as a Socialist Workers Party elector? Or is he now a reformist who would sincerely take the oath of office pledging to support the US Constitution? I don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t know.
Since America isn’t in a revolutionary situation, a leader who tried to overthrow the ruling class (however defined) would get impeached.
Eh, it’s largely irrelevant. Most Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton. Most young people (the ones we’re supposedly ‘losing’) say they’ll vote for Clinton over Trump. I’m willing to bet that they’d also vote for Clinton over Cruz.
Ultimately, the votes of some angry people on the fringes who feel wronged aren’t going to matter. And the concessions Clinton would have to make to sooth their egos are such that she’d just lose votes from the other end anyway. If someone wants to remove themselves from the process by staying home and pouting, it’s just not worth the resources to try and coddle them into coming around when those resources can be better spent on GOTV efforts towards less recalcitrant voters.
Let us define some overlapping populations and interests that might or might not vote D in November
There are some number of “Movement Progressives.” These are mostly people who have been politically active.
Some number of those who are just wanting some ill-described change, are not really thinking too deeply about what exact change they want and what that change would mean, they are just, perhaps even perennially, attracted more to the devil they do not know than to the flawed reality that is. They often come out to vote in Presidential cycles to some degree but don’t in midterms hardly at all.
There are some who are satisfied with Clinton but not crazy about her and happy to express that dissatisfaction so long as no real harm will be done.
Some who detest her. They will never vote for her. It might be because of one single issue (gun rights, or her Iraq vote) or just a knee jerk personal dislike for her or for all things Clinton
Some who like her and voted for her; some who think she will be a great president; some who love her policies as stated. Apparently a very solid majority of the Democratic party and even of all those who vote in all Democratic primaries and caucuses inclusive of “independents.”
Some who sometimes vote D and some R, voted for Obama in '08 but maybe not in '12. The classic swing voters.
Some who normally vote R but who do not want to vote for Trump. Some will stay home and some can be convinced to vote for Clinton over Trump.
Some who normally don’t vote who might come out to vote for Clinton against Trump. Some segment of Hispanic voters for example.
Now try to make a best guess at how many are in each group and how each would respond to:
a) the appearance of Clinton being forced to conform at least in rhetoric to Sanders’ stated positions that are in direct opposition to positions taken by Clinton during the election, with Sanders taking credit for forcing that to occur.
Or
b) Responding to publicly stated demands with “No I do not believe that free public college is workable and no we will not attempt to replace ObamaCare with MediCare for All. As stated during the primary season these are the things I believe in accomplishing [insert long list] and I meant what I said.”
In net she would lose by going with “a” and gain by going with “b.”
Movement Progressives will either vote for her over Trump or not but they won’t be bought by pandering that they don’t believe will be followed through on.
Most of the casual “change” voters for Sanders are going to vote against Trump and a few might stay home, whichever one Clinton opts for. Accepting his positions does not make her any less the symbol of what is than she is now.
Those who hate her, hate her, and will continue to do so, whatever she says she will do.
Those who like her will be disappointed if she caves to pressure but vote for her anyway, either way. More excited in the “b” option.
The last three, especially the swing voters and those who normally go R but with Trump as nominee might go D, would all be diminished by going with “a.”
She’d go with “b”, would be an idiot not to, and the goals of those who have claimed possession of the identity Progressive, the power of those people moving forward, would be marginalized.
OTOH Sander HAS moved Clinton to adopting some of those positions more fully already and full throated support of her without preconditions would be acknowledged with major seats at the table moving forward so long as it was able to be done from a position of strength and not explicitly quid pro quo.
In any case the individual voter will make his or her individual choice: Do they think either that: one or the other of Trump or Clinton presents more potential good to vote for; or alternatively that one or the other represents more potential harm to vote against? If either then they are morally obligated for the good of the country and of the world to vote accordingly, whichever way that is, not out of party loyalty but out of loyalty to the country and the world.
Issues? What about competence?
It’s amazing how we almost accept that in 99 percent of jobs in a market economy, the best, most experienced and knowledgeable person ought to be hired. But when it comes to politics, experience is a negative and it’s admirable to vote for someone who has no idea how government actually works.
exactly!!! Yes!!!
I think this post is on to something. Bernie Bros typically don’t vote at all, but then they get inspired by some fortune teller on the street who speaks to them and suddenly they want to “Bernie-splain” to the rest of us how we’re being duped into voting for bought-and-paid-for politicians and how Wall St is rigged (never mind the fact that 80-90% of these clowns wouldn’t have a fucking job without a strong Wall St but whatever).
I’m not entirely sure if you realize the post you quoted was dripping in sarcasm, but yes, please cheer on the person rightfully mocking your silly attitude.
An historical point - Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy Democrats who sat on their hands in 1968, may have allowed Richard Nixon to win the election that year. Certainly the enthusiasm level for Humphrey was very low.
And certainly, Nader voters in Florida handed the presidency to Dubya in 2000.
In most years, after supporting Bernie for over a year, it would have been difficult for me to support Hillary. But this is not a normal year. The horror show the GOP is offering the voting public is frightening in the extreme. Extreme. They must not succeed.
Err… Bobby Kennedy couldn’t have been sitting on his hands when Humphrey got the nomination. He was dead by that time. Had he still been alive when the Hump got the nomination we really can’t say with any degree of certainty what he’d have done and, while I don’t agree with them, there are some Bobby die-hards, one of whom is my mother, who were convinced he’d have won were it not for Sirhan Sirhan.
Bobby Kennedy Democrats …
Sure, but they weren’t jilted Bill Bradley devotees who decided to vote Nader in protest of Gore. They were just people who legitimately liked Nader. Florida wasn’t even Nader’s best state (or close to it), it just happened to be the state where Bush won by a handful of votes. An analysis after the fact suggested that, had Nader not been on the ballot, most of his FL voters would have voted for some other 3rd party candidate or stayed home because they were just people who liked voting 3rd party and/or sticking it to the Dem/Rep system. In other words, Bush still would have won because those people weren’t persuadable to vote Democrat.
Did they take into account the effect on the design of the butterfly ballot?
Putting that aside, Nader won 97,488 [Florida] votes, while Al Gore lost the state (and, therefore, the presidency) by 537 votes to Mr. Bush. So it isn’t a question of whether most would have voted for another 3rd party candidate or stayed home. In order to believe Nader didn’t throw the election to Bush, you’d have to think more than 99 percent of Nader voters would have otherwise voted for another 3rd party candidate, or stayed home, or voted for Bush. That just isn’t plausible.
I have a different defense of Nader and his year 2000 voters. If not for them, it is highly unlikely Barack Obama would be my president today.
Fair enough 
Oops! My apologies. :smack: