March 31, 2016 at 7:31 am #19158
Here’s an interesting interview with Barny Frank in Slate.
Made me think about a couple of things about pissed Trump supporters versus pissed Sanders supporters.
First, my current position (as it continues to evolve) is that I will continue to support Sanders through the primary process, then vote for Clinton in the General.
As many have said, she’s just so many light-years better than anything on the other side.
This is Sanders’ stated preference, and those who do not follow suit are not true Sanders supporters, they’re just mindlessly pissed.
On Sanders supporters;
I am disappointed by the voters who say, “OK I’m just going to show you how angry I am!” And I’m particularly unimpressed with people who sat out the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 and then are angry at Democrats because we haven’t been able to produce public policies they like. They contributed to the public policy problems and now they are blaming other people for their own failure to vote, and then it’s like, “Oh look at this terrible system,” but it was their voting behavior that brought it about.
Frank has an excellent point here.
Those who support Trump have, in some ways, a more legitimate gripe than those who ardently support Sanders to the exclusion of any other possibility.
They turned out and voted the bigots and religious fanatics into office and where has it gotten them?
I think they’re beginning to wake up to the fact that the “Establishment” has been using them as the useful idiots they are.March 31, 2016 at 10:53 am #19160Alfredo_TParticipant
A lot of the lazy, entitled, and student loan ridden millennials don’t remember Ralph Nader
There isn’t a third-party candidate today with the amount of exposure that Ralph Nader had in 2000 and 2004. I’m sure that the Green and Libertarian parties will have candidates, but I doubt that they will have the impact that Nader did then. Also, remember that in some states, election laws make it very difficult to put third-party candidates on the ballot. In these states, a petition is required to get the candidate on the ballot, and the candidate is listed as an independent (because the state does not legally recognize his or her party).
As I haven’t said so already, my feelings about this election are, “Get the popcorn.”March 31, 2016 at 1:18 pm #19166
This is Sanders’ stated preference, and those who do not follow suit are not true Sanders supporters, they’re just mindlessly pissed
It’s a bit more subtle than that.
Over the last couple of months, I’ve interacted with a fair number of these Sanders voters, who are Sanders only voters.
Here is the gist of it:
First, they really don’t care about the potential harm in Trump being elected President. (more in a minute on that) Secondly, they don’t believe Trump will get elected at all, for any reason.
But, let’s say Trump does get elected! Major downer for everyone, right?
Well, their position is surprising! They don’t have it good now. Their future is bleak and the establishment politics is basically offering nothing meaningful to them. They see something like the ACA as an ugly compromise that does help a lot of people, but it also does so at a very high cost.
They see lip service on things like living wages, while at the same time seeing the TPP being pushed through, despite the fact that treaty, like all the other trade agreements, doesn’t benefit people in the US, and does benefit multi-national corporations and in some cases, people in other nations.
Because of these things, they refuse the validate the establishment and are advocating other people do the same, and they are doing it as a form of hard ball, not unlike establishment politics.
To them, the question is simple: “Why should I vote for you, when I’ve been shit on and will continue to get shit on? What benefit does that actually have for me?”
Honestly guys, it’s a fair question. What they are doing is maximizing their numbers to get leverage.
If we align with them, share common cause, “we” as in the group voting for Democrats and Sanders, will be stronger than we’ve ever been. Without them, we may be weak enough to be a problem.
Secondly, in the weak state, nothing meaningful will get done. Their overall status does not change much. If they vote with others to validate establishment politics, their overall status isn’t likely to change much. Additionally, there is no realistic expectation for Clinton to help reform money in politics. Given how the Clintons have established their power base, and their net worth all derive from establishment oriented, big money, the Clintons would have to yield power in order to do that reform, and that’s not something we’ve seen history say will play out favorably.
Money in politics is basically why they are in the position they are in, and meaningful reforms are linked to addressing money in politics.
It’s a litmus test and Clinton fails. No vote.
On the other hand, playing hardball to combat fear and shame “vote for Clinton because Trump” type arguments, holds the potential for money in politics to get some real treatment. Sanders isn’t bound to the money like everyone else is. And Sanders stated policy goals, and approach to create a movement and tackle Congress is also well aligned with their goals and reforms they see as necessary.
To them, it’s not a matter of selling the lesser of two evils. They see it as a matter of party relevance. They see one body of corruption owning two parties. Either one of those parties gets taken over, or joins with them, or neither party makes any sense at all.
Finally, and this is brutal, a lot of them don’t have much to lose. And they know that. An awful lot of people do have far more to lose, and to those people, Trump is a real threat. If they stand firm and mean it, essentially threaten with Trump, they are betting that things will go more their way, favoring Sanders and a better overall alignment and strength.
Put simply, they don’t care if more of us lose out with a Trump President. They don’t want to take one for the team, unless there is some real promise for them on the table. And worse, if they don’t take it for the team, and Trump does get elected, their numbers will grow very considerably as now more Americans are shit on.
Next election could be golden.
No joke guys.
Party membership by percentage of the population is way down, and shrinking. Independents are bigger than they have been in a long time, and most elections run close.
This hardball threat is real.
Fear and shame won’t work on those people. They really don’t care, and they don’t care, because nobody has shown them any of the care they are expected to deliver, despite doing so not being so likely to improve their lot in life.
It’s a really shitty place to be, and they are there.
They aren’t stupid. Just playing really hard ball.April 1, 2016 at 1:34 am #19184Dxer1969Participant
Well, it’s still too early to tell. Anything could happen. Trump had a really bad week! Cruz seems to be getting more support. Maybe in a way, that’s a good thing. I believe the Republican party will implode. The Democrats will win handily. All worries over!April 1, 2016 at 11:17 pm #19207skepticalParticipant
KSKD, With perhaps some economic issues aside, I don’t believe things are as dire as you state re: millennials (just now learning to spell that word correctly).
I’m voting with history and again state that the young folks are going to uphold tradition and stay home on election day.
And Bernie Sanders, if elected, will most likely not able to enact on single major piece of legislation the way Obama did in his first term and run a risk of losing re-election if the economy tanks.
The millennials really need to start getting elected to Congress for those ideals to happen.
Now, Hillary, if elected, she’ll have to bring down a bank or two to get re-elected. :0April 2, 2016 at 10:21 am #19215
I don’t think you know that many millenials.
Here, it’s not too bad for many of them, though unemployment is still maybe a quarter of them.
Other parts of the nation are a lot more ugly.
Yeah, vote how you want. No worries.
My post wasn’t intended as anything other than an expression of what I have come to understand a significant number of Sanders supporters are about.
Let’s just say the conversations I’ve has are surprising as all get out.
And Bernie can still win. So we might not find out how it will all go.
:pApril 6, 2016 at 8:30 am #19251
On the day after Bernie’s victory in Wisconsin, I wanted to follow-up.
FWIW, I’m still with Bernie, and will be as long as He’s in it.
I totally get where the people you’re working with are coming from.
Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA for God’s sake.
It’s always been about political triangulation with the Clinton’s (RE: DLC).
I have a couple of questions about the Sanders only people you work with.
Have they, for the most part, been politically active previously? Have they voted in off-year elections?
What do they recall about the 2000 election and the damage wrought by Bush in it’s aftermath?
I remember clearly after Bush was “selected” in 2000 “how bad could it be?”
Well, as it turns out it was worse than I could possibly have imagined.
I agree Trump is very unlikely to become President, but after Cruz’s victory in Wisconsin, it appears that he is the presumed anti-Trump.
I think Cruz, as a Dominionist, is likely worse than Trump.
Do they have any understanding of the consequences of Cruz nominating Scalia’s replacement?April 6, 2016 at 11:56 am #19257
All great questions. Here is a few things I have observed:
Indy voters are now 40 fucking percent! A majority of those are young voters. A big slice of those do not value party politics and have voted on principle and voted sporadically.
They want to vote good choices. They do not want to affirm bad choices.
Many do not believe the Trump threat. More than a few worry about Cruz and Kascich.
Awareness varies with confidence in a GOP win.
They also know they have to be paid or get something for the big money to even have customers. They have cited a study to me more than a few times that says there is a lot less difference in governance between parties than many believe.
I made the older and wiser now comments, and those have impact. We won’t lose as many as they themselves think we will lose, but we will lose a lot of activism and people money.
I have no doubt on that whatsoever.
Here is how I see it shaping up.
Bernie is now very likely to deny Clinton a clinch. He could get more still, but that is a tough road. Either way, Clinton will not go into Conference as a sure thing. Sanders will make a very compelling argument that goes something like this:
People out funded the best and biggest political machine in the world, and are no where near tapped out. Money talks, and the people money want Sanders and party reform.
Establishment politics have moved far away from the needs of ordinary people, have taken big money, are corrupt by big money, and membership as well as voter motivation to turn out is not where it should and could be.
Again, money talks, and if the establishment wants a blowout downticket, they will need to play ball with the Sanders movement, which is self funding from a big money point of view, has indie voter appeal, has the biggest and best ground game, has the best electability, has the most new voters, can and will grow the party ranks, etc…
If establishment plays ball, party gets bigger, wins more, etc…
If not, most of the.positives go away or get marginal. Electing Clinton will take all the money, people money won’t be a big factor, and a win is most likely to be tepid and expensive, etc…
Bottom line us the law of the land has money as speech and as a tool in politics.
Given those realities, team Sanders has real financial leverage and wants a legit seat at the table. Sanders is running a “we” campaign, and it will fund and perform nicely.
Clinton us running a “me” campaign.
The difference is profound, and the people will go all in on favorable politics, and may just prevent Trump or risk a loss on unfavorable politics.
Sanders wants and will implement 50 state strategy to lift all party Dems and secure longer term movement activism.
(Obama threw OFA away, Sanders will keep his machine and grow it to get party dominance and people funding needed to break the big money corruption)
What isn’t being said, I’d Dem establishment actually likes money in politics like the right likes abortion as a GOTV issue. They won’t fix it, same as the right won’t really fix it because the appeal of running on it us too great.
(Interesting as fuck, yes?)
Edit: The vast majority of people funding Bernie want a long game and do not expect big bang fix everything. Sanders has been frank and honest about this. I find that remarkable and very highly motivating.
Progressives of all stripes want to take either a role with real leverage, or control of the democratic party outright!!
You all know my thoughts on that, and fuck yes I am all in on an opportunity of that kind.April 6, 2016 at 12:02 pm #19258
A Portland office is opening. I’m gonna go there this week, maybe next and meet the folks. Probably will canvas and phone bank.
This really fucking matters guys. If you think anything of our words here together over the years, you know damn well this is make or break.
If Sanders gets the nomination, it will be optimal. Good things will happen.
If Sanders does not, it is still good, as the movement can impact the party and still get some real leverage. Working toward good things will likely happen.
(Sanders is now a Dem and will run in all future elections as a Dem. His voting and caucus efforts are superior to any other Dem currently up for election. He is the best of Democrats, now full in the party.)
If Clinton gets the nod, we get a tepid Obama 2.0 election. Same old same old, but we do also get TPP for sure. Sanders will not ratify it for any reason.
The future of the party lies with Sanders and Clinton. She does not appeal to many of the potential new party members and Sanders does.
Clinton, like Obama, will appoint pro corporate SCOTUS judges. To be frank, this will validate and lock Citizens United in for the long haul. We are not likely to see reform in out lifetime.
Sanders will not do that, which puts reform on the table during our lifetime.
Both have good possible outcomes for us. Both have risks.
Sanders is by far the most favorable risk reward scenario.April 6, 2016 at 12:14 pm #19259
For what it’s worth, I suspect Cruz can beat Clinton. Clinton will try to appeal to the right. She is a poser. Has demonstrated this repeatedly, triangulating all the time. Her intent is good. I’m not speaking to that here.
Cruz is the real deal. His side will vote for him huge. Major authoritarian support, even though he is disliked.
In a contest between a poser and someone real, the real will win. That is the basis for my worry about Cruz and why I don’t worry too much about Trump.
Sanders is also real. This is why he is mor favorable against all Republicans! He is the more appealing real, unlike Clinton who does not have real, nor as broad of appeal. She polls to lose against all but Trump, and I agree with that assessment.
If he gets the nom, we may find more of the Bernie or bust people chicken out.
But I worry deeply about Cruz, which is why I will not do Bernie or bust.
I will be back later tonite. Busy daya for me right now.
Tell us your thoughts! All of you. I am eager to read them.
And again, I know and trust all of you. Fire away! We will be better for it, and I am missing my PDX RADIO chatter big!
🙂April 6, 2016 at 12:53 pm #19260skepticalParticipant
Sanders let Clinton get a head start in the campaign — he didn’t know he would get this groundswell of support. This is hurting him now. Yesterday in his victory, he did not even get the 57 percent needed from each state to catch up with Hillary.April 6, 2016 at 1:03 pm #19261
There are a variety of things in play there.
The race is not a static thing. As Sanders and his supporters do the work, public opinion improves. Had we run some of those races in the South today, they would be very different.
Sanders started here:
Now, he’s here:
Clinton was up by 300+ and is now up by 200+ and the remaining map is more possible today than it was a week ago.
The underdog is the fucking underdog! Winning is a heavy lift, but an increasingly possible one. Most of us are going to the mat, because we know it can happen.
Nothing else to say really. Either, it’s worth it, or it’s not.
Worth it. 😀
And think hard on that first image above. It, plus all the awesome youth activism, is a beautiful thing in politics. I am going to relish every minute. Live for this. No joke.
!!! We get ADS like that! And this:
How broad is that appeal, and who does it speak to? I’m having fun, and you can too!
My kind of peeps man. I’m gonna work for it.April 6, 2016 at 3:12 pm #19264
Could you please clarify this:
“They also know they have to be paid or get something for the big money to even have customers.”
“Obama threw OFA away…”
Sorry, you lost me here.
OFA?April 6, 2016 at 3:13 pm #19265VitalogyParticipant
The math. It still stands.
And, anyone catch that interview with the NYDN?April 6, 2016 at 7:21 pm #19267
OFA was the group that organized to get Obama elected. It was cutting edge at the time. The idea and some of the rhetoric centered around Obama using OFA to take actions and issues to the people. Didn’t happen.
That unclear bit is a mess! I was on mobile. Basically, they might not get much money, but they will have to get some money, or they can’t buy enough goods and services to make denying them money worth it. It’s a sort of minimal demand argument.
Even the very worst government will listen to business and feel social costs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.