For Hillary Clinton.
Why hasn’t Bernie been out there campaigning all these years?
I don’t have any particular interest in seeing a Tea Party-esque movement on the left, but one thing that I think leftists in general can learn from that movement is that they vote. The entire Republican caucus lives in fear that if they cross one of the many and increasing boundaries of the allowable positions they will be demolished by a primary from the right, fueled by the primary voters who will show up every single time. As a result, all though I do not agree with the concerns of these folks as a general rule, I admire how they make their concerns felt.
The worst of the Sanders supporters (not all of them, I hasten to add) seem to have the opposite idea - that they’ll withhold their support if they don’t get what they want, and that once everyone sees how bad it is, they’ll get their ideal candidate next time. However, they don’t seem to consider that you can draw the opposite conclusion from this, i.e. that this bloc is so fickle that there’s no point courting them and that candidates should try to get votes elsewhere. There’s also the fact that this ideal candidate never seems to appear, and usually doesn’t win when they do. This is a consistent pattern, at this point there’s really not a lot to be done about it, I don’t think.
I voted for Clinton, but I like Bernie okay. I’d have voted for him in a general election, if he’d won the primary, without reservation. I look at the people endlessly moaning on social media that there’s no difference between Clinton and Cruz and I have to wonder what planet it is that they are living on. But I really figure that a lot of it is social media echo chamber, and that most people aren’t even paying attention.
Isn’t it about time he started, then?
Hey Ambrosio, why aren’t you voting for Trump? Have you considered whether it’s your fault that he is everything you stand against and that if you just pledged him your unending fealty he might give you what you want? Or does your ridiculous idea that offering unconditional support to someone will make them work harder to give you reasons to support them only apply to Hillary?
The ridiculous idea that politicians might pander to voters who actually vote over those who won’t? yeah, that would never happen.
Ambrosio,
A little add on to your comments if I may.
I personally think that the largest portion of those who voted for Sanders are reliable voters who will also happily vote for Clinton. They just felt more favorable to someone who was selling “change” as a product. Maybe they are not as excited about Clinton as they were about Sanders. She’s more steamed Brussels Sprouts to them. They like the idea of thinking big or at least sending a message that that is where they want to eventually get to. But they like Obama, and are fine with the idea of continuing in his vein.
There is also a small number who are haters of “the establishment”, who view Obama as a disaster or a sell out or both, and who may stay home sulking. (“That’ll larn 'em.”) Yeah they’ll only further marginalize themselves but hey they stay pure, no dirty hands. Odds are most of 'em would sulk even if they were given 90% of their way because they refuse to sully themselves with any stinking compromise. The complete system needs to be blown up and rebuilt and anything less is too little. They come off like spoiled only children who are the worst possible roommates in college.
But some part of how Sanders exceeded expectations in his failed bid was that he did get some buzz going among some usual non-voters and got them to rallies and sometimes even to the polls. Here’s the thing though … usual non-voters, well, usually don’t vote. “Pander to us (and ignore the will of the people as expressed in how most have voted) or we will do what we usually do!” is not really a threat of much power. The fairly consistent non-voter does not get their voice heard too much. He got some of these previous non-voters to vote for him, but not anywhere near enough of them. The theory of his revolution depended on getting them out in much bigger numbers.
Let us be clear, these voters, less likely to have registered in the party or to have even voted in previous cycles, are not “the base.” The base by definition is that coalition of those who are reliable Democratic voters election after election and they have overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. But while they are not as large in number as they imagine themselves to be, they are still of import. They lean younger and more progressive true. And if they want to have future impact, like the true base does, then they need to prove that they will be reliable voters in the future.
If they want to matter they vote in large numbers now, this cycle. They organize to deliver downticket victories, they get plans made for how they will register many millions in advance of the next primary cycle …
Stay home, again, as usual, and they prove they don’t matter. Shame. We are even stronger when we work together.
Trump will not do anything I want. Hillary will at least do some of the things that I want. I’m a Texas Democrat, and that means that I’m used to both pragmatism and disappointment. Maybe it makes me more risk-averse than I should be in political matters, but it also means that I’m usually casting a protest vote at best.
I think that Hillary ought to offer things that Sanders supporters will find appealing, but the thing is that she will be offering something. What I’m referring to is the “either it’s Bernie or I vote for Jill Stein” factor, which I agree with DSeid above is probably a fairly small contingent of people, but very loud on the Internet. Hillary won’t spend her effort trying to win the votes of people who loudly declare that they’ll never vote for her since she’s an evil, corrupt, corporate whore - why would she try to ice skate up that hill?
Neither of those changes actually happened quickly and in both cases, who was on the Supreme Court mattered more than who was President. That’s why its important for people who believe in civil liberties to close ranks. For gay rights, it was also critical that state legislatures and courts moved first - hence the importance of down ballot choices. Your examples show the things we’ve been trying to convince you of - it is important to hold the court, its important to work at all levels of politics, and its important to work incrementally.
I recall that one of the knocks that conservatives like to throw at Obama that was actually true was that he changed his mind on gay marriage. It wasn’t that long ago that Obama said he was for gay civil unions but not marriage. However, his views evolved during his terms and now you can’t imagine a more gay friendly administration.
I didn’t mind his change. His reluctance to come out fully in support of gay marriage was a political calculation, no different from what Clinton is accused of doing, and was fine for its time. So long as one works incrementally towards progress, progress will always come. It took years of court rulings and work by gay activists to change the public perception of the LGBT community before they could win at the ballot box and only then was it time for an administration to be able to outwardly support them without hurting the movement.
Part of why I don’t mind Bill Clinton’s original DOMA law was because there were serious rumblings of an amendment to deny gay rights, and if it had gotten to that point it would have taken far longer to eliminate. DOMA was the pragmatic choice for gay supporters in an era where gays were openly attacked by both sides of the aisle and could not gain any traction in public opinion. It was a bad law but it may have prevented a worse one.
Hillary Clinton’s been in politics for a long time. Likely she has a lot of beliefs which were ahead of her time that she had to hide or moderate. Now her opponents are using that against her, claiming she’s the worst version of herself that her opponent sees. If they can believe the worst of her, its just as likely the best version of her is equally the real Hillary.
Very true. Those candidates with lots of experience will always be at a disadvantage when compared with candidates with little experience, because the latter lack a record which can be held against them. It’s one of the paradoxes of our selection system (and one that Obama himself profited from).
Of course that would cease to be true—IF voters would give up this notion that candidates must be Ideologically Pure, and Too Noble to Compromise, and all the rest of the misguided standards cherished by those who haven’t really thought through the implications.
The claim that it’s “reasonable” to require a leader who is a Perfect Father, righteous and unsullied by deal-making, pure and unchanging in his views (forever!), has perhaps done more damage to our society than has any other American delusion.
It will never happen if you dont compromise. Yes, he will try, and fail.
The People changed their minds on Gay Marriage, too.
Right, and Obama followed. Even a great leader sometimes cannot and should not force change onto people every time. With certain things, yeah, fuck the people’s wishes, we’re doing it the right way. But for other things time must pass so that people’s minds can change. I brought up Obama and gay marriage because it was a situation where a politician took a politically safe stand, just shy of doing the right thing, and only changed his stance when it was politically feasible to do so. This is the same thing a lot of people are accusing Clinton of doing which I think is unfair. So what if she goes where the wind blows? Like I said to that other guy, if she listens to focus groups then BE THE FOCUS GROUP
Exactly. And The People are polling well to the left of Clinton on economic matters. Yes Hillary can’t go with The People without osing the support of the Oligarchs. What will she do? What WILL she do?
Oh, and remember all of you that thought Hillary was supporting downballot tickets and that made her so much more of a Democrat than Bernie?
Well, turns out she’s been looting state Democratic Party funds with her “Hillary Victory Fund” joint project. Of the $61 million raised, just one percent remains in state coffers!
Bernie at least hasn’t been looting state committee funds for his campaign.
Feel the Bern yet?
You mean after she soundly defeats Bernie for the nomination?
Meanwhile Sanders has apparently decided how he wants to lose … badly.
And yes … still making the case that unless Clinton has enough to win “with pledged delegates alone” then the convention is “a contested convention” and superdelegates should in that case flock to him as the stronger candidate.
Meanwhile “the establishment”, specifically Clinton, is only saying nice things about him.
How he loses is clearly his call to make. Well, those who have yet to vote may comment on that as well. And of course those who he is aiming this rhetoric at the most: those who had been donating and who have dropped off.
I think Bernie’s chances of getting the nomination are way low at this point, so yes. I’m just pointing out all the fun you’re going to have with Hillary if she wins the Presidential race. Not a given. Even though George Will wants her to win by a landslide.
Are you guys SURE you’re Democrats? Because it sure sounds like we have two Republicans running for the Presidency this year.
I am very confident I am and pretty sure you are not.