It’s Time I Got Off The Fence – My Presidential Endorsement
Here’s where I began. Before Bernie Sanders entered the primary I was fine with Hillary Clinton. Basically, I knew what I would be voting for (warts and all). Nothing anyone says about her is new to me. That doesn’t mean I agree with her on everything. It just means that I was open to supporting a Sanders’ nomination. I even wrote a post about it and commented on it extensively.
I’m going to be really honest here. Many of the comments from Bernie supporters on this site concerned me. I heard a lot about why social issues weren’t important and would have to wait – suddenly incrementalism was A-okay. That surprised me, and concerned me, since Dems are going to desperately (and I mean desperately) need the votes of black and brown people, women, non-Christians, the LGTB community, and other minority groups in November. Not to mention that every time I asked for reasons to support Bernie I received a host of reasons to not support Hillary. Basically, I wasn’t comfortable with the strategy of “My candidate doesn’t suck as much as your candidate” comments. And boy, there were a ton of those. To me, that shows a weakness of your candidate.
Guess you’ve already figured out who I’m going with. I’d already admitted weeks ago I was leaning towards Hillary. The time since has merely strengthened my stance. Here are my reasons:
Sanders simply isn’t bringing out the vote. His promise to expand the electorate, to revolutionize the turn-out, hasn’t happened. In truth, that’s my biggest reason. I held back on endorsing mainly to see if Bernie could deliver. He hasn’t. And there’s no denying that increasing voter turn-out is his stated path to victory. Three contests in and not enough people are feeling the Bern. That’s a big problem.
Sanders keeps stating that, in order to enact his platform, that people will have to… Write letters to Congress? Protest Congress? Put pressure on Congress? Start a revolution? Sorry, but that won’t happen. Remember “Yes We Can”? That didn’t work out so well, especially since some Obama supporters quickly turned against our new President, and adamantly refused to give him the benefit of the doubt. And what bothers me is that a lot of today’s Bernie supporters were the very first ones to bail ship on Obama. So forgive me for not putting much faith in their being the leaders of the revolution Bernie is calling for.
And before I get comments on how it is our duty to point out flaws (or betrayals) and not become cheerleaders, I will agree with that sentiment – and I 100% respect it – but I don’t really want you on my team. And since a huge part of Sanders’ campaign relies on people rising up, people are going to have to suck up some disappointment. Yep, that’s politics. So, if Sanders’ supporters aren’t willing to do that, then I’m out. And given history, they will have to accept compromise and disappointment and stay the course. A Sanders win = the long haul. Are Bernie supporters up to that? I have my doubts.
Money, big donors and SuperPacs. The idea that Sanders will eschew these funding streams keeps me up at night. Is this just a political primary tactic? I would hope so. If not, add one more strike against him. You have to compete on the playing field that exists. I worry that Bernie’s main point (and it is a main point) about money from big donors, Wall Street, and SuperPacs will give us a candidate fighting with one arm tied behind his back. That’s unacceptable to me, mainly because it completely ignores the reality of what’s headed his way. That does not mean I like big donors and SuperPacs. It simply means they exist. Ignoring them, and the very real damage they can cause, isn’t acceptable to me.
Throwing a punch isn’t in Bernie’s wheelhouse. I watched last night’s Town Hall in South Carolina and Sanders falls flat on going on attack. (And that really worries me because this election – especially if Trump’s the nominee – will be a slug-fest never seen before) Don’t get me wrong. I admire Sanders for trying to keep it clean, but I’m beginning to think his motivation for keeping it clean is because he can’t throw a successful punch. Every time he goes after Hillary it falls flat. It simply doesn’t connect, unless you’re already in Sanders’ camp. I’ll also point out that the attacks Bernie is launching against Hillary won’t be a big issue in the general. Sure, Trumps self-funding lines up with Bernie’s small donations, but the general will be an entirely different animal when it comes to money. (More on that later.)
Issues. Sanders main issue is popular and 100% true, but he seems uncomfortable speaking to issues beyond income inequality. The office of the President requires more than a focus on a single issue – no matter how important. As I watched the Town Hall last night I was amazed that Sanders wasn’t asked one question on foreign policy. Not one. I don’t blame Sanders for the missing question, but given that foreign policy is glaring problem for him I was gobsmacked that it wasn’t part of the questioning. Sanders has gotten better on not answering every question with income inequality, but it still persists. He’s really not comfortable moving beyond that issue. And it shows.
Hillary’s speeches to Wall Street. I’m fine with her saying that everyone (Rs and Ds) need to release their speeches, but I’m playing the long game. As a Democrat, I do not want to add to the Republican arsenal in the general. I still can’t forget how Romney got away with not releasing his financials. The press let that slide – of course they did. Let’s not handicap either of our candidates on an issue Republicans will not only use against them, but get a pass on not doing the same. If everyone has to release their speeches to groups, fine. If not, then count me out of a standard that won’t apply to Republicans. The press love the “release the speeches” question. I’m not willing to give them that – especially since we all pretty much know what’s in those speeches. She was nice to who she was speaking to and they wanted her to speak, not because she would say something outrageous, but because they wanted to feel important and have a photo in their office. It had more to do with celebrity than policy. Was Hillary nice to them? Of course she was. Is this really an election deciding issue? Nope. She’d be a fool to release those speeches, and I don’t want a fool as a candidate. Basically, this is primary stuff – and I don’t fault Bernie for pursuing it. In fact, if he actually delivered turn-out in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada I’d probably reconsider my support of Hillary. But he hasn’t, so, yeah, I’m playing the long game.
Vetting. This is a huge issue for me. I simply don’t understand why Bernie supporters (or Hillary – other than she will need his supporters – or Republicans!) won’t vet their candidate. Whenever a concern about Bernie comes up, here’s what I see:
1. Comments, not about Bernie, but rather comments saying Hillary is awful, shrill, Wall Street = she’s corrupt, a liar, Bill Clinton, not progressive, etc.. Those things have nothing to do with supporting Bernie Sanders. I have a big problem with people who can’t promote their candidate, and, instead, rely on telling people how awful the other candidate is. I went back and looked at DL posts from 2008. Hillary, for the most part, was a side issue (at least until the delegate count showed Obama had the win). We were all about Obama, and even dealt with the attacks coming at him – and we didn’t do that by saying Hillary is terrible (altho there was some of that). Instead, we promoted Obama and his policies. It was great reading through those old posts and comments. We really were on our game.
2. Lengthy explanations on why Bernie didn’t really mean, vote for, things he’s said or voted for. To me, if every criticism against Sanders involves ignoring his votes, or his words, and a lengthy explanation (and I mean lengthy) on how he didn’t really mean or support the action he took… that’s a huge red flag. Unless we really believe that the American public is good at nuance and listening to lengthy explanations? Sanders voted for the Crime bill. He voted against the immigration bill. I don’t have a huge issue with those votes, but if we’re going to hold Clinton accountable for things she said and voted on without allowing her lengthy explanations then I’ll hold both accountable for their votes and words. If we accept explanations, then we need to accept all of them. If you’re willing to do that for one candidate and not the other, then that’s a problem for me… and your candidate.
Minority vote: Bernie still struggles with voting blocks Dems will desperately need in November. Now, I don’t think he doesn’t care about these issues – I think he does care – it just feels like he’s late to the game on these issues – like he’s never really considered them. That said, he’s getting better, but his words on these issues seem forced – and he definitely hasn’t picked up the lingo or code words that people deeply involved with these issues use regularly. During the last Town Hall ( before the Nevada caucus) he was asked a very specific question about feminism and responded by saying that Gloria Steinem had dubbed him an honorary woman and then went back to income inequality and how women are paid less than men. Listening to his answer I found it lacking. A good start, but not good enough. He’s just not comfortable on women and minority issues. Can he correct that? We’ll see. I hope he does since there’s a great discussion to be had on feminism and other social issues.
So… I’m going with Hillary Clinton. Not because she’s the perfect candidate and doesn’t have flaws and is supposedly “electable”, but because Bernie Sanders isn’t speaking to me as a whole person, isn’t delivering his promise of voter turn-out, relies on lengthy explanations to draw distinctions between himself and Hillary, avoids the foreign policy questions of today with a history lesson of decades past, still hasn’t been vetted on things that a lot of people will have a problem with, and, for good or bad, can’t throw a punch that connects.
All that said, I do have one major concern with not choosing Sanders. Ready? Here it is, and this might negate everything I’ve written above. A significant portion of Bernie supporters will vote for Trump if Bernie doesn’t win the nomination. Pooh, pooh comment sections all you want, but there are many Bernie supporters who will go for Trump. That frightens me, so… could I still be conflicted? Who the hell knows? I will say this… I had the same fear when it came to Obama not winning the nomination. I feared that some Obama supporters would simply not vote in the general if the nominee was Hillary. This time I fear they will vote. For Trump. There’s a common thread there that terrifies me. Newly engaged voters are unpredictable.
Truth is: We have no idea how either of our candidates would fare against Trump. That terrifies me too.
I need a drink.
Tags: 2016 Democratic Primary
I hear ya, buddy. Ideologically, I still support Sanders’ candidacy. Practically however, the only thing that matters to me is keeping Trump out of the Whitehouse.
I just dont understand the idea that Sanders’ supporters will go Trump. Most of my friends prefer Sanders and are TERRIFIED of Trump… but again, that’s my experience. Would you mind showing me a little to back that up.. although, im sure it will make my reflux even worse.
I can not and will not support Hillary if Jack Markell is part of ANY conversation around Hillary’s Secretary of Education. Much of what is wrong in current public education began during Bill’s first term when Marc Tucker wrote the Clinton’s a very long letter about his plans for education. Out of that letter came Bill Gates funding Common Core, teacher evaluations around high-stakes testing scores, more charter schools, and billions of dollars going away from public education and into the hands of companies. Hillary Clinton would advance this cause by choosing Jack Markell as her Secretary of Education. I would rather see Trump as President than have Hillary continue the downward spiral of public education with a Markell pick in that spot. Should Bernie be the Democrat pick, I will fully support him.
You would rather a man who boasts about his willingness to commit war crimes and strip citizenship from Americans based on religion, over a person you, by contrast, only slightly differ.
America could commit genocide under a president Trump, YOU will be partially responsible for that. I haven’t said this on this site for a while, so dont pardon my language, but fuck you, man. If you “would rather have Trump”, you might as well fully support ever horrible thing he has said. Because of that, YOU are a danger to the country.
While I feel you 110% Kevin, there is so much more at stake than education, which remains largely the domain of the states.
Pandora, thank you for your well thought-out and reasoned piece….I think it will help me make up my mind…and for me too, the head is beating the heart.
So you are supporting Clinton because Sanders supporters are dumping on her. And you show your support by……dumping on him and his supporters.
Good plan. Clinton in her “pragmatic progressive” crap, wants to get things done….incrementally. And you can avoid being called a wall streeter by not making paid speeches to them. You can also avoid being accused of not being a progressive by not saying things like “I am a moderate.”
Sanders is unabashedly progressive and anti-wall street. Don’t take it out on Bernie just because your candidate isn’t.
Clintons got the money and the backing of the party, wall street, big insurance and every democratic political hack for the last 25 years. (isn’t is curious how many Bernie hit pieces pop up all over the place?) She is going to win and we will get more free trade, wall street, big insurance BS and drone bombing. Pragmatic progressive means we will end up with things like the cluster fuck known as Obamacare.
And the idea that Trump, or any Republican, would relieve Kevin’s concerns is laugh out loud ridiculous. Kevin is absolutely brilliant on education issues, the political system… not so much.
Ben, the amount of sexism/crude comments I encounter about Hillary worries me. This isn’t about policy. Go to any site that has an article about Hillary and read the comment section – you’ll need to take a shower afterwards. Altho, you could just read Kevin’s comment above and see my concern. He didn’t take a second to look at the big picture. Yep, that concerns me.
“So you are supporting Clinton because Sanders supporters are dumping on her. And you show your support by……dumping on him and his supporters.” – makes a weak argument when you can scroll up for 1 second and see that isnt what was said…. but whatever you have to do I guess.
I’ll point out, SussexAnon, (besides the fact that I didn’t dump on Sanders’ supporters, merely pointed out MY concerns and why I wasn’t supporting him) that your entire comment proved my point by your only typing ONE sentence in support of your candidate and ten sentences against Clinton.
So I tend to stay away from comment sections… Dr’s orders….(half kidding)….. present company excluded.. but based on the personal interactions I’ve had, I just dont see it.
There is no way of knowing if the people in those comment sections are ACTUAL Sanders supporters or not. Yes, Kevin, the pro-Muslim genocide Trumpiter, kind of proved your point anecdotally, but, cynical as I have become, I dont think the Sanders’ base flocking to Trump is what we have to worry about here. I DO think I’ll be spending a good amount of time convincing them to vote at all.
I get the electibility part. I am sure the Clinton machine will fight much harder to elect a Democrat. as long as the Democrat is Hillary. My electibility concerns for Bernie are that Hillary supporters will either stay home or vote for Trump. so right back at you.
After all, the Clinton coalition includes many whose interests are more aligned with establishment Republican issues, due to decades of coddling DINOs. I would fear an “anybody but Sanders” wave among the so-called Democratic establishment.
The Dem primary has produced a vetting, but not the one you were thinking of. I had a very positive impression of Hillary, and discounted the VRWC scandal-mongering surrounding her. But her reaction to the vetting provided by Sanders discouraged me. I’ll still vote for Hillary over Trump. but with the same enthusiasm I would reserve for Tom Carper.
And by the way, Bernie brought up the Goldman Sachs transcripts only in response to Hillary’s statement “I have nothing to hide.” Hillary stepped in that one on her own, and it was the perfect rejoinder.
Fair point, Ben. I really hope they don’t stay home! I became really depressed writing this post, but felt it wasn’t fair to keep my decision to myself when I’ve been vocal on deciding between the candidates. FTR, I still really like both of them.
@puck Where did I place blame on the Goldman Sachs speeches on Bernie? Where did I make an electability argument? Hint: I didn’t.
Bernie as always been against the TPP, KXL, voted against the Iraq war and patriot act, has long supported raising the minimum wage, supports single payer, voted against DOMA in 96, advocated for breaking up the banks and throwing bankers that broke the law in jail, isn’t taking wall street donations, supports decriminalization of marijuana.
He is unapologetically progressive. And he isn’t known for scandals.
Again, Hillary is going to win. I will vote for her in the general. But she is a centrist hawk. Oh dear, was that last sentence bashing Hillary too much? or just reality born out by facts.
SA, you’re embarrassing yourself.
@Pandora,
I don’t believe Sanders supports will go to Trump. Sander’s support comes primarily from the under 30 crowd, many with student loan debt. Many of those are also first time voters and may not even be likely voters.
Clinton’s supporters, OTOH is fairly broad based and are the more moderate/independent voters. They would move to the more moderate candidate.
Sorry, Ben, Pandora seemed interested in knowing why I support Bernie.
You support Bernie because you hate Hillary. we got it.
Policy differences, Ben. I don’t hate her.
She IS a centrist hawk. I don’t mind voting for her, but I’m not going to lie about what she is to get her elected.
As a Sanders supporter, income inequality isn’t a single issue to me. It’s a single term that describes a myriad of issues that beleaguer this country. Food insecurity, no access to healthcare, struggling education systems, more and more workers in underpaying jobs, on and on. As you try and tackle income inequality you are forced to go toe to toe with each of the issues borne from it.
I will vote Democrat no matter who our nominee is, however I strongly prefer Bernie. Much like Obama, I fully realize he will not be able to do everything (or most) of what he says needs to be done, but he’s pulling us back to the left, and that’s what’s most important to me. We’ve been stuck right of the center-line for too long.
I’m not part of the under 30 crowd. But I get why those under 30 are gravitating toward Bernie and it is more than just student loan debt.
I know I’ve thrown out there that I’m behind Bernie before. Guess it’s time to write one these posts explaining my endorsement.
@pandora – my apologies if you weren’t talking about electablity when you said:
“…Sanders falls flat on going on attack. (And that really worries me because this election – especially if Trump’s the nominee – will be a slug-fest never seen before”
I am worried about Bernie’s electibility, for reasons I describe in a previous comment.
If you aren’t blaming Bernie for the transcripts issue. then who? Neither the Repubs nor the media is willing to stand up to Goldman Sachs and their ilk by insisting on disclosure. You’re right, we all know what’s in the transcripts.
I haven’t done an official announcement, but as you all know, I support and will be voting for Hillary. I like Bernie Sanders for what his campaign has done. He has made Hillary a better candidate, both logistically and ideologically. I like Bernie Sanders for his principles, and his role in articulating them in our politics. But I don’t want him as our nominee or our President. There is a host of reasons why, most of which you articulated.
On thing I cant understand…. if Hillary is so “untrustworthy” why do people think she is loyal and truthful with Wallstreet? If she is a con artist, lending her loyalty to those who most support her, (a political mercenary, to make it sound more dignified) why not get her loyalty. Let her take Goldman Sachs’ money, and use it to win an election, after which she can bring the hammer down on them. I dont actually think she’ll do that, but if you are going to make an accusation, you have to be willing to follow it out logically.
I’d be interested in reading that post, Brian. In fact, you’ve made the most convincing argument for Sanders to date on this blog. Should have been commenting more! 😉
Whatever, puck. My post was about my decision for not supporting Sanders. I’d written posts and a ton of comments on my concerns. I’ll point out that my “endorsement” of Hillary has more to do with what I consider Sanders’ shortcomings. She didn’t win me as much as he lost me. That’s my opinion, and I was quite clear, in the post, that these were my concerns. I even stated that the biggest concern (which no one has addressed) is the lower than promised voter turnn-out. I also didn’t go down the she’s more electable path, and conceded that no one knew what would happen in the general with Trump.
I also forgot another concern of mine. Bernie is not supporting down ticket Dems. To me, that’s a problem if we want to enact an agenda.
And I refuse to get into the “who’s most progressive” debate, because it’s ridiculous and I get that I’m seconds away from having my Progressive card rescinded. Hillary is not a “progressive” compared to Sanders, but she sure as hell is compared to Republicans.
I like Bernie and what he stands for; Hillary has been in the game a long time and has played the game by its rules…including cozying up to the money / influence to compete the way the rules currently stand. I don’t particularly like it, but no one knew any different until Bernie came along and pointed out how shitty it was. I love him for doing so, but as it stands right now, the game is still the same and the Democratic side HAS to win. There is too much at stake. I, too was holding out hope that an invisible majority would rise to support Bernie and his beliefs…but it just isn’t there. If he cannot win a majority of liberal and moderate Democrats, he simply cannot come close to winning in a general election. As Trump continues his rise, a Democratic loss is much more of a nauseating thought than four to eight more years of Democrats being kinder to Wall Street than they probably should be.
@pandora there’s this important referendum thingy in Christina that’s been gobbling up just a weeee bit of my time over the last several weeks. I should find a way to get more posting in, though. You’re right.
@Mikem- careful there. There are those of us who have known (for quite some time) that the methods of sucking up to existing power & money sources in use have been and will continue to be beyond problematic for our country
BTW, I’ll buy the first round of drinks, pandora.
Oh absolutely Brian…but its never been quite so mainstream or openly stated before.
You have a deal, Brian!
A Super-Tuesday Drinking Liberally! 🙂
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Trump as President. If Hillary announced a fundamental shift in education policy, that would be one thing. But where things are going with current corporate education reform agendas, it is NOT just education that would be affected. We’re talking the Department of Labor as well as part of Homeland Security. Without letting the cat out of the bag and ruining an article I’ve been working on for a while, this is much bigger than just education and involves intrusion at unseen levels. Hillary needs to back off from these plans. If she announces that, I support her. Yes, I truly believe Trump is a complete idiot and doesn’t think at all before he says things. I am also sure he will continue to say stupid things. No matter how many times you slice it, I don’t think ANY of the candidates, aside from Bernie, are what this country needs right now.
second.
Walking back your endorsement of Trump?
Shoot! I can’t do a Super Tuesday drinking liberally. I’m hosting an event for a candidate that night. But you guys could organize one without me.
I really hoped I’d never see the day when “liberals” supported a candidate who has stated publically and proudly that Mr HA Kissinger is a friend and major foreign policy influence. The whole idea gives me the creeps. I prefer Sanders avoiding foreign policy specifics rather than invoke a dirty war criminal. It’s borderline disqualifying…
More generally, Geezer succinctly said everything that needed to be said. Vote for Clinton. That’s fine. I have no real issue with it. I may eventually wind up doing the same. What I have take issue with is pretending that she’s something she isn’t, or rather more precisely, pretending that she isn’t something she clearly is.
Moreover, this abstract idea that Sanders “isn’t speaking to me as a whole person.” I don’t even know where to go with that. It’s like arguing with a religious person who believes in god because she had a vision of Jesus standing next to her hospital bed after a major surgery. I mean, what can you say?
I may choke down my castor oil, but I really don’t appreciate being told it’s a milkshake.
Now see, not voting for the D who wins the nomination is, in essence, voting for the R. (Altho, in Delaware Kevin’s vote/not vote shouldn’t matter in the least). Personally, I’d rather vote for someone who might hear me, rather than someone who will never listen to my concerns.
Kevin’s position on not supporting Hillary – even if Trump becomes a threat – boggles my mind. Yeah, let’s elect the guy who made fun of a guy with special needs and, given everything he’s said, would have no problem putting forth Separate but Equal, (and probably running on making all public schools charter schools if the cameras turn away from him for two seconds) because that’s the way to get what matters most to you accomplished. Seriously, how does sitting out the election (if it means Pres. Trump) help your education agenda? Not kidding. Explain that to me.
Have I told you it’s a milkshake? Have I said Hillary is the most awesome, most progressive, flawless candidate? Nope.
Time and time again, on this site, I have listed issues (in addition to income inequality) that concern me. I have consistently asked for Sanders to expand his platform, and what I kept getting back was that my concerns didn’t matter, that Bernie’s one issue was the most important and that suddenly incrementalism (on social issues only) was a good thing.
Do you think this might be a reason Bernie is struggling with certain other groups? I think it might be.
I can’t find anyone anywhere who describes a Sanders path to the White House, except his brother Larry Sanders. Can anyone point me towards a credible source that might be able to articulate how he would do it using likely voters math?
It will be Hilary, and if we don’t support her it will be Trump. Get back to me when you can explain why this would be a good thing.
Ben, I didn’t endorse Trump. I said I would rather see Trump if there is an indication Hillary would name Jack Markell as Secretary of Education. That is not an endorsement. It is pretty how much glass would I need to eat to vote for either of them. Who do you support Ben?
I sure hope there is a plan to keep the White House and not just move the Overton Window. Everyone realizes that the Overton Window is a notional place and isn’t actually near 1600 Pennsylvania, right?
It’s the westernmost window in the Lincoln Bedroom installed by Peter Overton, White House glazier (1921-1956)
Christ almighty, Kevin… For someone who puts fingers to keyboard as often as a soap-opera scriptwriter, you sure don’t seem to get the textual logic that by saying “I would rather see Trump as president than…” means if the condition you established is met, you are okay with seeing Trump as president… Which means you are endorsing him for President if Jack Markell is in the mix for Sec. of Education…
This supports my theory that people base their vote on all manner of fucked up nonsense.
But.. FWIW, I don’t think we have to worry about Markell getting a cabinet appointment.
How, exactly, would we know if Jack Markell is on a short-list for a second-tier cabinet spot? Arne Duncan was nominated more than a month after election day in 2008.
Trump has named the Department of Education and the EPA as two agencies he would eliminate. So your choices might be to have a ED with Markell or no ED at all. Trump also does not like Common Core, but I think it’s safe to say he has no clue what it is. He just heard about it or read something somewhere. He’s pretty agnostic about most things except real estate, money, stuff like that.
I know, right. Of all the things to worry about.
“This supports my theory that people base their vote on all manner of fucked up nonsense. ”
Yep. Crux sensitivity is often not the strongest characteristic.
This boils down to keeping the GOP out of the White House. Whatever it takes, whatever you have to say or do. Trump has the GOP nomination locked up (barring an unanticipated event). Hopefully enough people are working on a strategy to compete with him in the general because what you see in the primary is the exactly what you’ll get in the general. Hearts and minds.
Prop Joe, I call that my move out of the country scenario. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Why do so many of you take things so literally? Liberalgeek, I’m sure Obama knew who he wanted for most of those Cabinet positions way ahead of time! Jason330, I pray to God he isn’t in the mix. Not what I’m hearing, but I will pray just the same!
Come on, Kevin. Your comment wasn’t tongue in cheek (I just reread it to be sure). Don’t blame your words on us. You still haven’t explained 1) how electing a Republican will help your education agenda, and 2) LG’s question of “How, exactly, would we know if Jack Markell is on a short-list for a second-tier cabinet spot?”
Pandora, how I know this information and how it came to me is not something I am able to reveal as I’m sure you can understand. But if Hillary is nominated, chances are we won’t know who she picks for Cabinet positions until after the election. We will hear all sorts of rumors, but anything definitive isn’t final until an announcement. So, to quiet all the folks thinking I’m some big Trump supporter, if it comes down to Clinton against Trump in the Presidential election, and she hasn’t announced Markell to a cabinet position prior to that, she would get my vote. If she did announce it in the same contest, I most likely wouldn’t vote at all.
I don’t think I have an education agenda per se, except getting more funds into the classroom and out of the hands of testing companies and those who think they can “fix” education when all they are doing is “fixing” their own bank accounts. If Hillary can do that, more power to her. If she makes it worse, that’s an issue. To be honest, I can’t even wrap my head around the idea of Donald Trump as President. It’s like a b-grade horror movie gone bad…
Hillary will be indicted by the fall.
@Dave: this what you see in the primary is the exactly what you’ll get in the general. Hearts and minds
No. I don’t think so. To believe that is to believe that Trump really is the character he’s playing right now. Trump is making an ongoing calculation about what propels him to victory, not just in the GOP but in the General.
He will become whoever he thinks he needs to be in order to compete with Hillary, and for her he will have used his fortune to come up with the best mud money can buy. Everybody (except jason and me) keeps underestimating the guy.
And he’s also going to subsume the GOP by making Marco Rubio his running mate.
I take Trump seriously, but I shouldn’t have to – If only the GOP had started the primary with an actual candidate.
If Trump picks Rubio, the Dem picks Julian Castro. I’d pay money to watch that VP debate.
Here’s the deal. We might lose some white voters to Trump, but I don’t see those numbers being big enough. Women and minorities will, yet again, give the Ds the win.
pandora I think you are potentially quite wrong about this, and even if you are right the portents are not good. The wild card is the disaffected who have not voted. The GOP turnout in Nevada was 75,000, compared to 44,000 in 2012. Both Cruz and Rubio secured enough caucus votes to have won in 2012. Trump’s play in the general is not ‘running toward the middle’ or even ‘Trump lite’–it’s running toward the disaffected non-voters.
The problem this creates for Hillary is that he can give those voter a reason (however shoddy–“they’ve lied to you all along, I will go in and fix it for you”) but right now her strongest play in the media is that she is the one who can defeat Trump–not she is the leader America needs. And–as I think both DelDem and jason have remarked repeatedly–the idea that massive numbers of people turn out to vote “against” a candidate is a myth. Hillary has little to sell the disaffected millions because they already believe the system is so broken they don’t bother voting.
I’m not trying to be a Cassandra here (really, cassandra, I’m not), but everybody keeps counting on the mechanisms of politics as usual to eventually create a firewall that stops Donald Trump. In reality, that politics as usual argument started to fray as early as 2004 when both Kerry and Dubya didn’t run to the middle during the General, because there was no voting middle left. In 2008 Obama redefined Democrat politics so thoroughly that even Bill Clinton no longer understood them well enough to help Hillary secure the nomination. In 2012 the GOP finally proved (although it didn’t learn) that a traditional GOP establishment candidate can no longer run and win in the General. Here jason is right but he puts the death date too late: 2012 killed the establishment GOP.
Donald Trump is our Vlad Putin–an ultra-natonalist with a thorough understanding that appealing to fear and anger done correctly works quite well. And you know what happens to people (not to mention whole countries) that underestimate Putin.
AMEN
Amen for what Steve said, UI?
For what Pandora said. I know Trump should not be underestimated but he’s likely to motivate people against him as well.
I swear that I did not read this Chris Weigant article before I posted the comment above about underestimating Trump in the General:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/beating-trump-not-so-easy_b_9312196.html
Putin is a lifelong political operative, ex-KGB. He spent years within the Soviet and Russian political machines. Trump is the real estate tycoon version of a celebrity chef. This is all hyperbolic nonsense. The difference is Putin means what he says. Actually the real difference is Putin doesn’t say anything. He just does it. because that’s how the real shit goes down. This comparison is ridiculous. All due respect Professor Newton, but that’s silly talk.
Now, could Trump win the general election? Sure he could. But all this talk comes from irrational fear not reason.
There 10,000 articles and blog posts every day. Trump will win and here’s why. Trump can’t win and here’s why. Trump is Hitler. Trump is a madman. Trump is a genius!
That last part is probably true, by the way.
First, thanks, UI. Love seeing your name in the comments!
I spent far too much time thinking about Trump last night. I’m going to point out why I think he’s more vulnerable than people seem to think.
1. Primaries do not reflect the voting population of the general election. They represent involved people from the primary party.
There’s no denying that Trump is bringing more people into the process. Most people like a circus. I play a game every time we see a Trump audience or voters – find the minority. It’s quite challenging.
So if 8 in 10 Hispanics don’t like Trump (new poll out today) and we can also confidently say he won’t win the black vote (and Muslims, gays, most women, etc.) then can he really win with just the white (mostly male) vote? That’s a Yuuuge hurdle. The only way I see this happening is with significantly lower Dem turnout in key states – which is possible and makes a Trump victory our fault, but…
Trump is capturing everyone’s attention, not just his supporters. Everyone is talking about him, watching him. He is energizing far more than his base. Name recognition is a plus and a minus for him. We do love our reality TV.
When I look at the GOP primary I don’t just see people running towards Trump; I see them running away from the other lackluster candidates.
2. I’m going to beat a dead horse. He hasn’t been vetted. Not one little bit. If anyone can explain to me why the other GOP candidates never go after him I’m all ears. Can he survive the attack ads from the Dem machine and SuperPacs heading his way? We don’t know because the GOP, for some reason, isn’t really running any.
The Donald waxes lyrical about how tough he is and how politicians/politics are a baby’s game compared to what he’s dealt with. Yeah, right. That’s easy for Trump to say now – mainly because he hasn’t come under attack. (And he’s never dealt with Congress. LOL. They would eat him alive, unless he’s willing to become a puppet.)
The truth is: Donald Trump is the most delicate, little flower out there. He takes everything personally.
Wanna know how to knock him off his game? Then take a page out of President Obama’s book. Remember the White House Correspondents’ Dinner? That video is a thing of beauty. Be sure to watch Trump’s expression. The man has no humor. He cannot laugh at himself. That’s a weakness that can, and should be, exploited. Go at him with insults and you’ll lose. He can out insult anyone. Make fun of him, laugh at him, paint him as a fool and he loses it.
3. Issues.
If Donald Trump wins the nomination and the press lets him get away with what he’s getting away with in the primary – not specifically explaining his platform – then that’s a bigger problem for our country than Trump. And that should be the issue and the biggest threat to our democracy. Yep, bigger than Trump.
But will that really happen? Will the press grill the D candidate for specifics and let Trump skate by with saying, “I’ll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” over and over again without stating specifics? I doubt it, but I’ll admit our press makes me nervous.
4. The narrowing field of GOP candidates hurts Trump. More GOP candidates dropping out and the debate stage shrinking isn’t good for Trump. Up until now he’s benefited by being able to jump in when he wants to and take shots. It helped him that the other candidates focused mainly on each other. It also helped that they can’t throw a punch to save their lives.
The last debate was a spectacle, but I’m interested in tonight’s debate. For the majority of the GOP primary Cruz has held his fire against Trump. I’d even say it’s the reason Cruz is still in the race. I’m not sure Cruz can afford to do that tonight. Rubio can’t afford to not go after Trump (and Cruz), but he’s really terrible in the debate format and thinking on his feet, so he’s probably hoping Cruz does all the heavy lifting. And let’s face it, the time for Cruz to go hard on Trump is now – he cannot afford to lose the Texas primary.
Out of all the candidates Cruz is the scariest and the nastiest. He’s not stupid. I’m not saying he can take Trump out, but I bet he tries tonight. He has to be ready for Trump’s endless cries of “he’s a liar” and I’m interested in how he addresses that. He can’t ignore it any longer, especially since Nevada exit polls showed that Trump’s attacks against Cruz took a toll. Needless to say, I’m watching the debate tonight.
Can Trump win? Sure. Anything is possible in a two person race, and that makes me extremely uncomfortable. But a Trump victory relies on a lot of things that just haven’t happened to him yet, and it’s interesting how we apply these standards to our own candidates, but not Trump.
Well, at least this comment made me feel better. 🙂
Pandora, you always anticipate me.
I came over, today, because one of my young “ardent democrat ” friends, who’s been “feeling the Bern” all along, just announced he’s going to support Trump.
“The Democratic Party needs shaking up.” “Hilary is a criminal, and worse than Nixon.” And lastly, and most tellingly, “I’m tired of the progressives and their PC rules.”
It is completely unimportant to him that Trump raises hate against immigrants, or Muslims. It doesn’t matter that Trump’s combination of narcissism and political naïveté puts him at risk of being manipulated on a massive scale. In the final analysis, he will vote against a woman, because he feels like he needs a break from being a good guy, and he has the privilege to go with that.
Scary times.
@Dorian–of course the comparison of Trump to Putin–if you want to compare their resumes–is hyperbolic. But by the same token it is not unwarranted. Both men are strong nationalists, perhaps even uber-nationalists. Both men substitute that nationalist rhetoric for policy discussions.
(And if you believe–as you appear to–that Putin does not talk, pretty much all the proves is that you’ve never watched Russian television. Putin and his surrogates talk plenty for domestic consumption, and I’ve listened to several hours of it, both in English translation and in Russian. Absence of hearing about it is not evidence of absence.)
Sure, Dorian, there’s plenty of punditry out there, but use a good news aggregator and collect some stats next time. Significant percentages of “Trump could win the General” only started to appear in major media (where they are still far outnumbered by articles explaining why he won’t win the GOP nomination) only started to appear about the time South Carolina was voting.
Trump is far more of a genuine oddity in an increasingly polarized political landscape than anybody since George Wallace. Ross Perot doesn’t come close. But here’s the reason for concern with Trump: that Trump could win the GOP nomination is a bad enough report on the health of the body politic. That many Bernie supporters (nobody knows how many) are more willing to vote for Trump than Hillary in the general is worrying. That good people like Kevin Ohlandt can find reasons either to stay home or go vote from Trump is not just perplexing, it’s downright disturbing.
The vetting that pandora is counting on–including the relentless attack ads–has a large chance of not working out as planned, because Trump is already carefully laying groundwork by attacking the media and basing his campaign on the media “lies” being perpetrated against him … even by Fox News. Don’t look now, but it is working for him.
My final point is one that–if you look hard enough–you can even find in pandora’s endorsement post for Hillary: the lack of any passion. Ironically, 9/10s of pandora’s post concerns reasons why she doesn’t feel the Bern enthusiasm and is therefore going with Hillary because … she’ll take the SuperPAC money!? Examine pandora’s endorsement of Hillary and tell me if you can find even three policy positions that Hillary has taken that excite her, make her believe this is the woman who right now should be running the country. It ain’t there. What’s there is a lot of talk about Bernie and a lot of tactical talk about who can defeat Trump.
That’s Hillary’s problem: for her to win as her campaign is currently conceived, millions of people are going to have to vote against Trump rather than for her. That is the pipe dream.
I am not saying Trump will win, or even that he has even chances against Hillary. What I am saying is that he has a much greater chance of winning than Dorian thinks, and that the consequences of such a victory are much more significant than Dorian believes. I’d be more than happy to be wrong, but I don’t think any of us can afford to be that complacent.
I doubt any candidate will get me as engaged as Obama.
I was very careful when I wrote this post (I’m so tired of the Hillary name calling – so I avoided it). And it’s true. I’m more “nope” to Bernie than “Rah! Rah! Clinton!” I guess my point was… I should have been a natural Bernie supporter. I wasn’t. Yes, that concerns me (and has had me generating posts and comments), but it should concern Bernie supporters too.
“… many Bernie supporters (nobody knows how many) are more willing to vote for Trump than Hillary …”
A conundrum, yes?
Actually, no. For some reason no one in the media, or anywhere else for that matter have caught on to the fact that Sanders and Trump are both selling revolution and their revolutionary supporters are bound and determined to have their revolution regardless of which one it is. True the far right’s revolution just wants to take back their American fantasy and the left revolutionaries want to shed the old America and build a new American fantasy, but hey who cares about the details when revolution is on the horizon? Pragmatic competence is pretty damn boring. It doesn’t get the juices flowing like revolutions.
So Trump and Sanders peddle their revolutionary shtick promising to shake things up. The media buys in because…well because they aren’t really journalists anyway and it is all about ratings. And the people? Well as P.T. Barnum is famously and incorrectly thought to have said….ah never mind.
Way to get a lazy “both sides do it” schtick on.
There’s an important difference between the two, but there is something crucially important about the appeal of both. Both sides do it misses quite utterly that there is a serious number of people who think they’ve lost control of the process (they’re right) and are working out ways to express that. Only one of those schticks is a result of Lee Atwater’s DNA finally getting its full expression.
I can see Dave’s point. There appears to be a hunger on “both sides” for a candidate that doesn’t appear to be connected to government and/or the corporate oligarchy that has given us the past 25 years of middle class decline.
The ones voting for Trump are confused racists, to be sure. But the thing that unites Trump voters and Sanders voters is the desire to give the finger to the status quo.
“I came over, today, because one of my young “ardent democrat ” friends, who’s been “feeling the Bern” all along, just announced he’s going to support Trump.”
This is why Bernie Sanders is the key VP candidate.
Hillary needs him to keep people like this from jumping.
Trump needs him to seal the deal.
He’s really the only VP candidate that could give the Donald an easy win.
First of all Trump is not picking Sanders. Get out of here with hat weak-ass shit. (apologies if you were kidding and I didn’t get it)
Secondly, Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would work as Clinton’s VP. All other possible choices are complete shit.
LE, it’s possible my friend would vote for a ticket with Sanders as VP. I wouldn’t count on it, though. And I’d laugh out loud to see what they’d do with Warren.
I think that would be a clarifying moment. Warren has Sanders policies, expressed more literately. I think choosing her would just demonstrate how often “I like Sanders, because he’s not in with big money” dissolves down to “I’m not voting for a woman, when I still have white men in the race.”
Two women on the ticket? I’d love, love, love it, but… we don’t handle women aspiring to higher office well. And I’ll point out that when Warren was running she faced a lot of the criticisms Clinton is facing. (Yes, this article is from a Clinton supporter and feminist. You don’t have to agree with it, but the comments about Warren happened.)
Sounds familiar, no? So I’m not sure I could handle the onslaught coming our way with two women on the ticket. I’d expect a lot of insightful comments about cat fights. Ugh.
@J “First of all Trump is not picking Sanders.”
What Trump is not going to do is to pick any of the clowns he defeated.
After that, he’s going to go for the win.
What’s the GOP going to do when they don’t like his VP pick? Vote for Hillary???
If you don’t think that Trump is thinking-outside-the-box, then you’re the one with weak-ass shit.
“I chose someone who will help me shake up Washington in a big way!”
That’s basically all he needs to say.
…and do you honestly think that Sanders would reject Trump?
I can see Trump thinking that way, LE, but Bernie would never do it. No way.
Sanders is too inclusive…and while it shouldn’t be, they would both be 70 plus when taking office. No way. If I had to place a bet, it would be Kasich.
@p “…but Bernie would never do it.”
And I’m worried that he would. Bernie doesn’t see Trump as a conservative.
@LE “Bernie doesn’t see Trump as a conservative”
Aptly so.
@p “…but Bernie would never do it.”
And Bernie is such a loyal Democrat. Let’s see… He’s been a Democrat since…
Stop scaring me, Le! 😉
Nope, nope, nope. Bernie wouldn’t do that.
Let’s face it. Bernie doesn’t really care about party labels.
Bottom line. Hillary needs to be cautious.
Bernie’s been a Democrat in Action most of his career in politics. He’s only been a Democrat in Name since this election cycle.
Cassandra, if you think my point is that “both sides do it,” then you missed the point. Not to worry, Jason got it.
And I think all Democrats need to be cautious. Not just Clinton. Democrats have to seriously consider whether Trump is beatable and if so, by whom. AND they have to consider whether the Democratic primary is strengthening or weakening the candidate who may be able to beat Trump or is the primary the primary and the general a whole new ball game?
I think Bernie cares very much about party labels. He can’t leverage his position as an outsider without them.
Or “maverick” to use another term. 😉
The general a whole new ball game. None of the GOP primary candidates took Trump seriously enough to create or deploy any deep (or shallow) Opposition Research.
You can bet that Clinton will not be making that same mistake.