A risk free vote for Sanders
Whether or not Bernie can change the Democratic Party will come down to follow through. We can’t know the future, and so it is pointless to try and game plan what Sanders may mean to the Party five, ten, or even twenty years from now. Instead, we can look at the facts as they stand today. Many are doing that and digging into their pockets to support Sanders in spite of the long odds of success. Why is that? I can’t say it any better than Booman said it.
A Vote for Sanders Won’t Be Wasted
by BooMan
Mon Feb 29th, 2016 at 10:47:21 PM ESTWell, one group of individuals that has not given up is Sanders’s army of small donors. The Sanders campaign just announced that they raised more than $40 million in February and are now trying to get to $45 million by midnight.
In case you don’t know, those are insane numbers. If he accomplishes little else, Sanders has proven the concept that you can run a presidential election funded by regular folks.
I don’t even know what they can do with all that money. But he’s got no reason to drop out.
I’ll tell you, it makes sense to want two seemingly contradictory things at the same time. You might want Clinton to be the nominee and still want Sanders to have as close to half of the delegates at the convention as possible. In other words, you may want to vote for Sanders even if you don’t actually want him to win.
Why would you want this?
Because you want a progressive party with a progressive platform and progressive rules changes, but you’re not ready to roll the dice on Sanders as the nominee.
If the polls are anywhere near correct, it’s a risk-free proposition with no downside.
Sanders doesn’t have to win to change Democrats. In fact I think the worst outcome would be for Bernie to win the nomination and then run for President without the Democratic establishment, the Clinton machine, and the Hillary die-hards 100% behind him. They would all rather work with Republicans than Sanders.
I’d rather think of Bernie’s campaign the way I think of the Occupy Wall Street protests. They didn’t win, but they changed Democrats. That was when I first started hearing Obama talk about income inequality.
To hear speaker after speaker denounce TPP would make a wonderful convention.
“They would all rather work with Republicans than Sanders.”
They would work for Trump? I dont think so. MAYBE if its a Rubio/Sanders matchup… But if Trump is the nominee, i cant see the Dems passing up the chance to end the GOP for good.
Risk free?
Yeah, that’s what got Gordon reelected, anyone remembers? We were “voting our protest” during a primary?
This is silly:
“In fact I think the worst outcome would be for Bernie to win the nomination and then run for President without the Democratic establishment, the Clinton machine, and the Hillary die-hards 100% behind him. They would all rather work with Republicans than Sanders.”
The exact same thing was said about the Clintons/Clinton machine, Hillary die-hards and Dem establishment during the 2008 primary. So, we know how these groups will act since we’ve actually seen it before. BTW, I think Bernie and his supporters will behave exactly the same way Hillary and co. did in 2008.
I get the disappointment, but making up scenarios that don’t line up with what we’ve already witnessed (the exact same damn thing in 2088. Sheesh.) is complete nonsense.
No need to make up scenarios.
In 2001 a Democratic congress joined with Republicans to pass the Bush tax cuts for the rich. In 2010 eighty Senators voted to extend those same tax cuts, and a Democratic president signed it. And then proposed austerity to make up the difference.
Who’s being silly?
Democrats are being silly when they accept the conservative narrative that voters hate tax increases.
Sure they do. That’s why Bob Dole won so big in ’96.
And yet raising the gas tax or raising revenue to clean up inland waterways or even for some school districts has been rejected on a bipartisan basis in this Blue state.
What’s silly is underestimating the power of the all the government you can eat for free narrative that is also pushed on a bipartisan basis.
And that’s a big yep, Cassandra. It always seems to be: We have to raise taxes, but not certain taxes – you know, the ones that impact me! Human nature, I guess, but one that shouldn’t be discounted.
That’s why I said Democrats are being the fools here. Public polling has NEVER put taxes in the top three concerns of voters.
Delaware Democrats are held more captive by the Chamber of Commerce than the Republicans in most states are.
But they are toxic enough for everyone to want to run away from them. I’ve said this before, but I can’t believe there isn’t some leadership to be demonstrated in connecting taxes to the stuff that is important to voters.
“Public polling has NEVER put taxes in the top three concerns of voters.”
That’s because Republicans and the right-leaning media have convinced the public that the problem is spending, not revenue.
Well, that’s a big problem. If that’s how the public feels how do you change that? We can’t even get consensus on a liberal blog about the gas tax.
There are always risks and opportunities (sort of the opposite of risk). They can be quantified in terms of probability of occurrence of and consequence (impact). But quantitative analysis aside (because it’s complex), one can still conduct a qualitative assessment. To wit, supporting Sanders creates the opportunity that Sanders will win the nomination and cement for the progressive cause for decades to come.
So, if Sanders wins the nomination there is an opportunity that he wins in the general. There is also the risk that Trump wins the in the general. The question is what is the probability for either the risk or the opportunity.
Or Sanders wins the nomination, tacks to the center and runs against Trump?
Or Clinton wins the nomination, with a more progressive platform and runs against Trump?
Or Clinton wins the nomination, tacks to the center and runs against Trump?
The fundamental question is what kind of candidate with what kind of platform can run against Trump and win. How any of you “feel” does not amount to a hill of beans if your objective is winning. If that’s not your focus, then I would question whether it’s your real objective.
If Sanders makes you feel good and he loses the general it’s the same as peeing your pants while wearing a dark suit. It gives you a warm feeling and no one notices.
What you want your party to be has to be weighed against what the other Democrats want their party to be. If it was just your party you would get to decide that. Right now, Independents outnumber Democrats. Someone ought to figure out why that is before you decide what you want the party to be.
31% of the voters are Democrats. Democrats come in 3 primary flavors – conservative (aka moderates), liberals, and progressives.
Will all 31% of the Democrats vote for Sanders (or Clinton) in the general? Since there are not enough Democrats to win the day, you need some of 42% of Independents or some of the 29% Republicans who won’t vote for Trump. How many you get depends two factors. How much Trump scares them and whether he scares them less or more than your candidate.
There is a risk of underestimating Trump, but there is also a risk in overestimating Trump. Every rube-golderbergian electoral contraption is possible, but I am warming up to the President’s take: Trump is not going to be President.
The “Trump wins” meme only exists if we ignore the fact that this country elected Obama (a black guy!!!) twice – by overwhelming margins.
Trump will not become President because…………………..
……….underneath it all, he’s far less likable than Hillary. She’s no peach, but he’s a cactus, and more than half the public gets the skeeves just looking at him.
Would you buy a mortgage from him?
Would you go to his University?
Would you be suckered into buying any of his overpriced branded stuff?
Then why would you vote for him?
You know he’s just going to steal and swindle what he can.
Unlike some rich guys, Trump is not known for his good deeds.
So pretty much it’s because…..Trump is not nice and people won’t vote for him.
How’s that working out so far?
But the general will be different because ….people will come to their senses by then?
Is that the plan?
because people other than the party of racism will get to vote. THAT is the plan.
My theory has always been that people vote for the more likable candidate. “How it’s working out so far” is moot, because only Republicans can vote for or against Trump right now.
Check out his unfavorability score. It’s even higher than Hillary’s. So that’s the way I’ll bet.
Primaries are not the general.
In South Carolina approx. 25% of registered voters voted in the Republican primary. In Nevada, approx. 75,000 voted in the GOP primary out of 505,818 registered Republicans. So, while primaries can show some things that should be taken seriously, they really are a fraction of a fraction of voters in the general.
Trump’s appeal cut across many demographics – including blue collar workers. My comments really focused on making Clinton more progressive during the campaign as if that was going to buy them anything during the general. Underestimating Trump is exactly what the rest of the GOP did and it’s not working out so great for them. You dismiss Trump too readily and rely too heavily on the common sense of the electorate who time and time again have demonstrated that they have no sense. As Jason constantly points out – voters continually vote against their own interests.
I won’t belabor the point that this election is unlike any other.
And I won’t belabor the point that this election isn’t all that different.
I say she’s the more likable candidate. Men are likely to disagree, but the electorate is 53% female.
The GOP didn’t underestimate Trump. They overestimated their other candidates.
The general will be different because blacks, Latinos, Asians and Jews will be voting in it.