She won’t say any of that out loud. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone, online or off, who has.
Dude. Radical is not a synonym for “unpopular.” It’s a word with a meaning. If what you’re doing is making up a brand new definition for the word, please let us in on the definition so we know what you’re trying to say.
By current definitions of “radical,” supporting the status quo is the exact opposite of “radical.” Which is fine, it’s a perfectly legitimate position and one I’m inclined toward. It’s just not radical.
I think EJ Dionne has a great article on the two candidates. It pretty well sums up my ambivalence about both of them.
I don’t intend any disrespect towards Senator Sanders. He seems like an honest man who is presenting his platform openly. And while I’m not in full agreement with that platform, I don’t find it abhorrent either.
But I feel there is a realism gap among his supporters. I feel too many of them aren’t noticing the difference between what a politician wants to do and what a politician can do. So while I believe that Sanders wants to make greater changes than Clinton does, I also believe that greater changes would actually occur under a Clinton administration than would occur under a Sanders administration.
“Traitors to the party”? What is this, 1984? If a Clinton supporter genuinely thought Rubio or whoever else would be a better President than Bernie (unlikely, but possible), or vice versa (OK, pretty much impossible), they should be loyal to their* country* and cast a vote for their favored candidate. I realize I’m about 250 years too late on this one, but this party above country stuff is cancerous.
I really don’t think the definitions of “radical” are as constrained as you claim. There is after all “radical centrism”. And in my trusty American Heritage Dictionary (5th ed.), the second definition given is “Departing markedly from the usual or customary”. I think my appreciation for the political system as it is qualifies. 
But I also want to note that I am not taking up for the status quo more broadly. There are many changes I strongly favor in government policy, such as:
–Providing a universal health benefit of an HDHP/HSA plan;
–Catching up to the rest of the world in fully paid family leave;
–Not only repairing and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, but retooling it to be more walkable and bikeable;
–Ending the war on drugs once and for all;
–Paying reparations for slavery and Jim Crow;
–Weaning the U.S. off fossil fuels altogether;
–Instituting a guaranteed basic income
These hardly represent the status quo. But I firmly believe the Democratic Party is already well positioned, with leaders like Hillary Clinton. to move incrementally toward eventually implementing all these policies and more. No “revolution” needed!
Off the top of my head, without even doing a search:
I know Hillary is opposed to reparations (as is every white politician in the country). I know she’s for the War on Drugs. I know she’s supported by the fossil fuel industry. I know she’s* strongly against *single-payer, so any “universal” insurance she proposes will not really be universal, but spotty.
I haven’t seen any indication she gives a flying fig about a basic income guarantee.
I would believe she might support some infrastructure spending only if you can find a cite for her actually positively saying she will pursue it. She might not be against fully paid family leave.
So, on half of those, you are imagining things if you think she’s on your side.
This is the problem. Leftists want Hillary to be their ticket, but electable. But her “moderation” has more to do with what she actually doesn’t stand for (as in, progressive economics, radical environmentalism) than with her electability.
Hillary will be known as the nominee of the Socialist Tax-Raising Commie Baby-Killers if nominated, just the same as Bernie. She just won’t *do *the stuff you want her to do. You may get from her candidacy more of the electoral disadvantage of running a Socialist Tax-Raising Commie Baby-Killer than you get the policies you want out of it.
This thread just indicates to me that Hillary Clinton is benefiting from supporters who assume that she’s more liberal than she is, and that the difference is one of style. Actually, no.
If it were just style, so what? I think Hillary will be seen as a dangerous Commie by the Right, just in “sheep’s clothing.” If she’s ashamed of leftism enough to hide it, how does that advocate for left-reform?
The policies mentioned in post #106 will become more viable if they’re more popular. How do you make something more popular if you’re ashamed of it? How do you make a lefty policy more popular if even the Democrats run away from it?
But–even worse–if she advocates for something to the right of Nixon, we continue to define “leftism” to mean conservatism in practice.
Hillary supporters tend to be older and conservative, so this might be you projecting from what you want her to do. Someone from one of the parties might as well be the “I won’t set everything on fire” candidate.
Older, yes. Conservative? Uhhhh.
BTW my mom served on a foundation with her in the 1980s and found her to be quite progressive. My mom is a Bernie supporter and laments how much Hillary has changed since then. I think in her heart she has likely not changed much but it is just a pragmatist.
It’s certainly true that Vermont Republicans are generally saner and more reasonable than the national party is. Very much like New York Republicans, in fact, which is the only kind Hillary has ever actually defeated in an election.
So I guess we’ll call that a draw. I will magnanimously overlook the minor detail that Bernie has done this ten times as many times.
Clinton has faced national level shit flinging. That’s a little silly. I mean not during an actual election, but all the accusations are out of the bag.
But I agree that Sanders has more election experience.
I mean, let’s get real–who exactly are these Sanders supporters who don’t realize that Republicans are going to tell all sorts of stupid hyperbolic lies about whoever the Democratic candidate is? Who exactly are these Sanders supporters who will be surprised by Republican attacks? Let’s name names.
It’s very easy to sneer at your political opponents for how stupid you fantasize they are. It’s a lot harder to admit that people of thoughtfulness and intelligence may have come to a different conclusion than you.
So this happened…
Good God almighty… and an example of how Hillary Clinton has to watch her tone a bit more than most people may realize.
And you’ve got a complete narrative already built and figured out, that just so happens to end with the obvious conclusion that the candidate you support is the winner, so of course any opposition should just stop now. :rolleyes:
Concern about damaging a candidate before they get (or don’t get) a party nomination is ridiculous, full stop.
Clinton is, as you say, not unique in her relationship with the establishment (or whatever words you want to use to describe it). Bernie, on the other hand, is unique in his relationship, and it’s a difference that many who support him find vitally important.
IIRC, a number of books on the Clinton Administration in the 1990s reported that Hillary Clinton was the leader of the left faction in the White House (along with James Carville), who did battle with the more moderate faction in the administration.
But radical centrism demands radical changes. Your politics does not.
Comparatively. FYI.
Most Americans Don’t Like or Trust Hillary Clinton.
Her unfavorable rating is 52%. She is only slightly more popular than Donald Trump.
This is the safe, reliable candidate we can’t afford to take the risk of NOT nominating?
Sanders ratings for comparison.
H