April 13, 2016 at 10:32 am #19360
Yes! I did activism for him when he ran to replace Gordon Smith.
Nice pay day today!
I have a very compelling argument to post here, maybe later today. Here are the cliff notes:
Clinton will not perform well in the general. She could lose some matchups. Republicans will turnout huge, because Clinton.
Sanders will perform well. He has no match up trouble. Sanders actually has support coming from moderate GOP voters.
The Sanders movement has passed a point of no return. Party strength and unity is centered on Sanders. People are way too invested. Directly, financially, not just emotionally or for issues.
There is no meaningful path for Sanders to “hand off” his voters and campaign for Clinton. Sanders will be ineffective when running on a fear based platform. His movement won’t have it, and he knows that now.
The people are paying directly, and they aren’t asking. They want results, and their reason is the same as any big money reason.
Fear, shame, blame all don’t pack much of a punch. The excitement and all important indie votes are for Sanders by huge margins. No way those all convert for Clinton.
That damn server could still be an issue. If she gets the nom, it will come up.
Sanders people are costing the party donors a ton. At this point, it is cheaper and more effective to work with Sanders than clinton. Risk reward and price performance ratios favor Sanders by a mile.
Party establishment has a lot to lose. If it goes bad on their watch, look out! Sanders people know that, and worry about baggage with Clinton.
In poker terms, the expected value of a Sanders vote is much higher than a Clinton vote. And the Sanders peeps are pot committed, all in, boom or bust by large margins.
At this point in time, Sanders is the much smarter wager. As the movement continues to grow, that equation becomes a lot more favorable.
Yes, this does put SCOTUS at risk, and 8 years of a GOP dominant government. You think I’m concerned?
Fuck yes I am concerned. Hate the idea of it.
But I am now convinced the Sanders people mean it. They aren’t asking, and money talks.
Again, he meaningful bit here is Sanders has no path to convert and unify. He can try, but it won’t work on far too many of his supporters.
We either go big, unify around Sanders, or go broken, with the Sanders movement looking a lot like the lefties Tea Party, a hostile change agent not committed to the party.
That is all happening. No undoing it now. Not even with a big loss in NY. They will go all the way to Philly, and have CA as their big gain to bank on.
This argument works even when Sanders is close, but not leading in delegates.
The core of the Clinton opposition centers on big money influence she used to lock up super delegates before a single vote has been cast. Most of the Sanders camp will not roll with that. I understand that sentiment.
Sanders will have to present it meaningfully to the party Supers, who are basically the voting establishment. He is being paid to do that too.
Sadly, Mrs and I are both Clinton fans. Our adoption was helped along and family made viable due to Clinton policy. I do not write this as a Clinton hostile voter. But the truth is, the people need more, are paying for more, and their confidence in the Democratic Party to do that for them without them having a meaningful part in things is low to nil.
That is on the party, who made the calls, and fell short. Falls on Clinton too. Not her fault, just the outcome we are experiencing today.
I believe these people are going to call the “but GOP” bluff hard. They aren’t asking.
Took me a while to sort it all out. I like Sanders message, and tossed in for that reason. Lots of us did.
Now it is big enough to be a threat. No undoing it either. It just is. Money from people make the dynamics different this year.
I’m voting Sanders because not doing that is likely to bring Republicans. Crazy shit, isn’t it?
Go ahead talk me down. I want to read strong counter arguments. Tell me I’m full of shit. Please!April 13, 2016 at 10:58 am #19362edselehrParticipant
You’re full of shit. 🙂
But seriously, I see either Clinton or Sanders as capable of beating anyone on the Republican side at this time. Basically a cakewalk for Hillary, but Sanders would have to do some more work to pull it off, but still very do-able.
In essence, the Republicans are fielding such a poor team that either the Democrat’s “A” or “B” game can defeat them. The only danger is overconfidence on the Dem’s part. In fact, campaigning harder than ever is a win/win for the Dems, because it essentially guarantees the White House, but can have the added benefit of flipping the Senate, even perhaps flipping the House, and maybe taking back some governorships.April 13, 2016 at 11:13 am #19363BrianlParticipant
Sen. Merkeley is a regular of ours at the airport. In fact, last summer, his daughter worked for us.
Not only is he a really nice, well-grounded guy, but he genuinely cares. Unlike so many of our politicians, he literally walks the walk. He flies home every weekend to be with his family, and is back out first thing Monday morning (flying coach, on his own dime). I’ve had a lot of conversations with him, never about anything political (I’ve never asked, if he volunteers, great), and he is like one of us.
The Bernie train is catching steam, for sure.
What is going to be interesting is if Hillary wins the nomination, and Trump or Cruz win the GOP nod. You’re going to see a LOT of “because ______” votes going on, with a lot of people holding their noses.
Bernie offers the Democrats a viable alternative on that front. Even if you don’t like his left-leaning principles, from an ethical standpoint, there is nobody in the race as squeaky clean.
The GOP has NONE of that. I like Kasich, who seems sensible, moderate, and refusing to stoop to the level of Trump and Cruz, but he stands no chance against those two because he isn’t spewing vitriol.April 13, 2016 at 11:19 am #19364
Great stuff. Keep it coming.
What about house and senate? Compare and contrast your perception Clinton and Sanders please.April 13, 2016 at 11:33 am #19365LurkingGrendelParticipant
I don’t think you’re full of it. You’re passionate.
I do think you’re overstating some things, understating others, and perhaps a bit unconsciously and without malice seeking out (and then strongly agreeing) with data that supports your position while tending to overlook or reject that which does not. I would add that all of us are guilty of that to a lesser or greater extent at one time or another. More on that in a moment.
One of the things my significant other alternately appreciates and finds exasperating about me is my pragmatism. I have informed opinions, but am very good about separating the personal from the professional as well as the way I might want things to be versus the way they actually are. As you know, I can write and express onions in a passionate, funny, or even profane fashion in an effort to underscore a deliberative point. I care deeply about a number of issues. However, politically speaking I’m far more about what can be done (even a compromised half-measure) as opposed to supporting a far more ideologically appealing proposal that is simply unworkable.
My support for Hillary Clinton is entirely pragmatic. I’m well aware of her various strengths and potential political liabilities, but on the whole feel she would prove a more effective President. It’s not sexy, but it’s realpolitik. I believe she’d prove extraordinarily competent and likely able to move progressive policy forward. She was an effective U.S. Senator with an earned reputation for working with her political opposition. She was largely an effective and well regarded Secretary of State as well. (The bulk of the criticism she engendered during her tenure was, in my opinion, entirely politically motivated and spurred on by her likely run for the Presidency in 2016.) And I’ve watched her calmly, intelligently, and largely without becoming rattled drive her more vocal political opponents to damaging distraction time and again. IMO, the lady is a boss. She’s not perfect, I don’t’ agree with her in a number of particulars, but I think she’s the best candidate for that job.
As I outlined a number of times I have no significant issues with the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. Should he somehow prevail and become the Democratic nominee I’d certainly vote for him rather than the Republican alternatives. However, in my opinion Bernie’s supporters tend to focus more upon the sexy and less about the details. Bernie’s passionate, fiery, likeable, and expressing left wing populism in a manner foreign to the more centrist Hillary. I get it. I like Bernie, too. However, I don’t find many of his positions or advocacies to be particularly thoughtful or well grounded. Or for that matter, likely at all to come to fruition given the complex realities of governance.
These two conflicting opinions were not arrived at capriciously, but after a lot of reading and thoughtful deliberation which deliberately eschewed who I like more, who I’m in more total agreement with, or who is more exciting.
Which brings me back to my original (hopefully you’ll agree, polite) criticism which you invited.
• I reject the proposition that the supporters of Bernie Sanders would not support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. That kind of rhetoric thrives during every primary season I can recall, going back years, on both sides of the aisle. Invariably, primary passions are put aside as the supporters of one party or the other face the reality of the general. Putting aside there’s no real precedent for believing anything else, (Remember 2008? I seem to recall reading equally fiery, even angry, screeds on how the supporters of Hillary would fail to unify behind Senator Obama.) I find any argument to the contrary intellectually unsatisfying. I mean, really. Democratic voters are going to sit out the general and allow Donald J Trump or Ted Cruz to secure The White House rather than support Hillary Clinton? I don’t believe it. Furthermore, such talk only enables the very dangerous right wing lunatics that would like nothing better than to turn The United States into Governor Brownback’s Kansas.
• That, is the main thing I find annoying about the more vocal Bernie Sander’s supporters. Seriously, take it down a notch. I respect your passion, but actually suggesting you’d rather burn the house down rather than support the fireman you like less than the other one is just silly.
• Hillary or Bernie will prevail in the general vs. either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. The electoral math for the Republicans is formidable to begin with; add in Trump or Cruz and it becomes borderline impossible. It’s not a zero sum game.
• Clinton has been scrutinized to death. The Republican have thrown multiple decades of inane, untrue, hyperbolic, idiocy at Hillary Clinton and she’s still standing. She’ll still be standing at the end of the general as well.
• To wit, the “Sanders” people need to calm down. The bulk of the electorate is, believe it or not, still barely paying attention to any of this. I’m sure it feels otherwise to those who are actively politically engaged, working for a candidate, attending a rally, and/or have donated money, etc. but the main reasons Bernie’s negatives are not more pronounced is that he’s mostly been ignored. The Clinton campaign only began taking him seriously in the past couple of months; and even then have withheld going overly negative/overly hyperbolic. The Republicans have their own issues. Should Bernie Sanders become the nominee he’s going to be the focus of a tsunami of opposition. He’s far more of an unknown in that regard than Hillary Clinton. In my opinion it’s total wishful thinking to presume his current positives and match up polling will resemble anything to what we see today six months from now. Conversely, Hillary’s numbers are likely going to look pretty darn close to what you see today.
• Mathematically, Hillary Clinton is still very likely to be the Democratic nominee for President. I’m often amazed at how short people’s memories are. Ex: Hillary won a slew of primary battles in the later stages of the 2008 election but was still unable to catch then Senator Barak Obama’s delegate totals. We know how all of that turned out. No-one is taking anything away from Bernie Sanders. To date, fewer people have voted for him and he has a lower delegate count than Hillary Clinton. It’s not a conspiracy.
All of that said, by all means, support Bernie! As outlined, I feel he’s less qualified and would likely be a less effective President, (in addition to being a more dangerous unknown in the upcoming general in comparison to Hillary Clinton) but he would be vastly preferable to the alternatives.
And so would Hillary Clinton. Let’s keep things in perspective.April 13, 2016 at 1:32 pm #19369
Ok, a fellow author knocked my argument out of the park.
Here is a summary of voting data that suggests common wisdom, might not actually be:
That’s a non-trivial read, but worth reading, IMHO.
Now, I gotta go back and see what LG left for me. You guys are great. Appreciated.April 13, 2016 at 2:22 pm #19373
LG brings up a lot of points that I believe as well, and my support is pragmatic too. I believe Hillary is more qualified and will make a better President. She’s a known quantity, no way in hell of getting an October surprise with her. She’s tough as hell, has taken a lot hits over the last 2 decades, and is still standing. I believe her to have better odds of winning the general as opposed to Bernie, which is what matters most to me.April 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm #19374
From Electoralvote.com today:
No Matter How You Look at It, Clinton Is Ahead of Sanders.
A lot of supporters of Bernie Sanders don’t like the fact that the media keep saying that Hillary Clinton is ahead of Sanders. After all, Sanders hasn’t lost any of the last seven contests. Surely he is leading now? Actually, no. The only thing that really counts is delegates, and Clinton is ahead by almost 700 of them. But, Sanders’ fans will say, only pledged delegates should count. Those are the ones the voters picked. Well, Clinton is ahead by 250 pledged delegates. How about votes? Nope. Clinton has gotten 2.4 million more votes than Sanders. But what about states? Sanders has won 14 states and territories, yes, but Clinton has won 20 of them. But wait, Bernie’s supporters are more enthusiastic than Hillary’s. Actually, no to that as well. A recent Gallup poll shows that 54% of Clinton’s supporters are extremely enthusiastic or very enthusiastic about her candidacy versus only 44% of his. So by every possible metric, Clinton is ahead.
Why, then, do Sanders’ supporters think their candidate is ahead? For one thing, his rallies are much bigger than hers and his supporters tweet their hearts out for him and hers don’t. But that is largely a difference in the demographics of the two groups. His supporters are young and love social media. Hers are older, don’t go to rallies, and think tweeting is something small birds do in the spring. But ultimately it is about delegates and there she is way ahead and after New York and the Mid-Atlantic states vote in April, she will be even further ahead.April 13, 2016 at 2:35 pm #19375skepticalParticipant
Paul krugman has an article out about Bernie. I can’t link to it here but touches on Lurker’s remarks. I try not to get passionate about candidates. It clouds one’s thinking. The last time I thought the world was going to change because of an inspiring candidate, we got a second term of Richard Nixon instead.April 13, 2016 at 7:34 pm #19379
Wow, I just learned that 40 Dem Senators have endorsed Hillary. Merkley is the first to endorse Bernie. 40-1. Are they all wrong??April 14, 2016 at 9:02 am #19384edselehrParticipant
Merkley endorsing Sanders surprises me little. Merkley has always been a little anti-establishment, willing to shake things up and step outside the box (remember his attempt at filibuster reform?) This is one thing I’m liking about the Democratic party right now – they are keeping things interesting while still keeping it real. Bernie talks about a revolution, but he is really just reminding the Dems of their socialist, activist roots.
In fact, I would have no problem with there still being a Donald Trump in the race, as long as there were a viable, sane Republican in the lead for their nomination. That’s how each party grows, and tests its own beliefs. But in the case of the GOP they are allowing the whackos to take over the asylum…because the whackos are well funded billionaires, or are funded by them. And when is the last time you saw a Republican say no to money?April 21, 2016 at 5:09 pm #19519dodgerParticipant
Ha! Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz are now the “establishment” since we’ve gone SO far left and SO far right now in the country…who’da thunk it?April 21, 2016 at 6:11 pm #19520
You know the email address Dodger. Use it.
I’ll drop a few comments here later.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.