Tuesday Open Thread [3.29.16]
NATIONAL—Morning Consult–Clinton 50, Sanders 39
NATIONAL—Morning Consult–Trump 49, Cruz 28, Kasich 10
Uh. I thought Bernie had clinched the nomination already. Why does Hillary still lead all the polls?
Isn’t Sanders the candidate of consistency, honesty, and integrity? Here’s his top strategist, Tad Devine, in 2008:
“If a perception develops that somehow this decision has been made not by voters participating in primaries or caucuses, but by politicians in some mythical backroom, I think that the public could react strongly against that,” Devine said.
“The problem is [if] people perceive that voters have not made the decision — instead, insiders have made the decision — then all of these new people who are being attracted to the process, particularly the young people who are voting for the first time, will feel disenfranchised or in some way alienated,” he said.
Square that away with Devine today, in that Washington Post interview:
“I think we have to see where we are,” Devine said, adding that if Sanders were just behind Clinton in the pledged delegate count and had lost the popular vote, “we’re going to make an argument that you should nominate Bernie Sanders.” Devine said the campaign would argue that such an end result was partly because Sanders didn’t contest certain states. “I do think it’s important to take a look at states where candidates have competed with each other,” he said.
See? Now it doesn’t matter to him if he’s behind the popular vote or delegate count, even if voters end up feeling disenfranchised and alienated.
Why? Because the only states that matter now are the ones that Sanders deigned to contest, like Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Arizona (which Clinton won, by the way). I mean, both candidates have made strategic decisions on where to contest. Clinton didn’t spend a dime on last weekend’s contests or caucuses beyond Iowa. She knew she would get blown out. Sanders didn’t spend money in the South. He knew he’d get blown out.
Is the Sanders campaign argument going to be that Southern African-American voters don’t count because they didn’t bother to contest for their votes? Dear god! Do they not realize how ugly that argument is? And while it’s bad enough that Devine is making this argument, it’s even more distressing seeing Sanders himself repeat it.
Jeff Stein on why 2016’s BernieorBust will go the way of 2008 Hillarys’ PUMAs.
They mostly agree on big policy questions: Sanders and Clinton may seem at odds right now, but they stand an ocean apart from the major Republican candidates on an overwhelming number of positions.
“The differences between Sanders and Clinton on policy just aren’t very great, and they get blown out of proportion in a primary contest,” Abramowitz said.There are far too many to list here, but a sample include: the need to raise taxes on the wealthy, the reality of climate change, appointing a progressive to the Supreme Court, the desire not to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, and raising the minimum wage.
A (relatively) civil primary: Sanders and Clinton have traded some barbs over their past voting records, and Sanders has knocked her for taking exorbitant speaking fees from Wall Street.
But the primary hasn’t been that acrimonious. “On our worst days … we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate,” Sanders said in February. There have been few attacks driven by the candidates’ personalities or personal histories.“The race hasn’t been very bitter; much less bitter than that between (Barack) Obama and Clinton, for instance,” Grossman said.
Sanders himself: Sanders himself has pledged to back Clinton if he loses the primary, recently reiterating that both candidates’ key goal must be to not allow the Republicans to win back the White House. This effect will be even more powerful if Sanders gives a major speech at the Democratic National Convention urging his supporters to rally behind Clinton, Abramowitz noted.
Historical precedent: In July 2008, 54 percent of Clinton voters said they wouldn’t support Barack Obama in a general election. Ultimately, however, nine in 10 Democrats ended up voting for Obama over John McCain, according to the Nation. Similar threats were made — and later failed to materialize — from the supporters of Howard Dean in 2004[.]
The specter of a Trump or Cruz presidency: This historical precedent is coupled with the strong likelihood that the Republicans will nominate Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, who are both widely reviled on the left.
“Clinton’s been leading Trump by an average margin of 10 points, and that wouldn’t be the case if a significant number of Democrats were defecting,” Abramowitz said.
We are seeing the stages of grief among Sander’s supporters now. Some are in different stages at different. Jason is in denial. Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver, Bernie’s campaign heads and top strategists, are in the bargaining stage.
Ok, you say. We get that Clinton has built a strong delegate lead. But she should be able to close this out with more strength, winning the vast majority of the remaining states. And if she doesn’t, it shows weakness for the general election. Well, […] [a]t this time eight years ago, ]President Obama] too had an all but insurmountable delegate lead.
But in the last 9 contests, we lost 6 of them. Now, we had some issues like Rev Wright we were fighting thru. And Hillary Clinton campaigned admirably. But we predicted those losses long before based on the results we were seeing in the earlier primaries and caucuses.
Even as we were moving towards the nomination, and ultimately the Presidency, we knew we would lose a bunch of states in the latter part of the primary calendar. Some suggested it showed weakness or would hurt us in the general.
History suggests otherwise.
First Read: “The Badger State is almost taking on a role like New Hampshire: Because it’s the only state voting in an otherwise empty stretch, it’s less about delegate math than it is about momentum on both sides. It feels like we’re coming out of halftime and the next scoring opportunity offers the team that seizes it a chance to reset. For Republicans, the #NeverTrump movement has to prove it’s got the juice to slow the frontrunner’s momentum, because they’re going to have a much harder time stopping him if they don’t change this narrative fast. Meanwhile, Trump hopes to make plays in areas like Green Bay and Paul Ryan’s hometown of Janesville to flex his muscles with traditional and non-traditional GOP base voters alike.”
“By the way, watch for the complex rules of GOP delegate allocation to influence how the campaigns operate. While 18 of the state’s 42 delegates will be awarded to the statewide winner, the majority – 24 delegates – will be allocated to the winners in specific congressional districts. That means that candidates are likely to hammer away at the areas of the state where they feel they have best chance of racking up a CD win. And, of course, keep an eye out today too for Gov. Scott Walker’s ‘formal decision’ in the GOP primary.”
Rick Klein: “Before there’s any teamwork, maybe there can be agreement about the rules of the game. John Kasich’s campaign’s efforts to work with Ted Cruz forces to block Donald Trump – first reported by CNN – look to be stalled over a lack of trust, not to mention the fact that Cruz needs Kasich less than he needs him to just get out of the race.”
“But there’s a powerful point that it’s not too late for Kasich and Cruz to make in unison: that they won’t support Trump as the nominee. Yes, this would be violating the pledge, a pledge that was re-confirmed by all the candidates at the latest Fox GOP debate. Yet both Cruz and Kasich are edging toward that reversal anyway. What’s the downside in making that formal, if that’s what they both believe? It wouldn’t be a partnership, but it would create a major and unprecedented moment for two candidates who need to shake the race up, and fast.”
Brian Beutler writes about the Republican party after Trump:
One way or another, the Republican Party is about to rupture—the only question is from which side. If Donald Trump wins the GOP presidential primary, as he’s heavily favored to do, he will drive some unknown, but large, number of regulars from the party. If Republican officials manage to wrest the nomination from him for nearing but failing to reach the threshold required to win outright, he will bolt, and take some unknown, but large, number of supporters with him—either into a third party, or into a protest movement that haunts the actual GOP nominee and creates an air of illegitimacy around him.
NBC News on the GOP’s down ballot dilemma: “Republicans are growing increasingly concerned about the impact a Donald Trump presidential nomination could have on other GOPers whose names are on the ballot this November. Nearly every recent poll measuring a potential Trump v. Hillary Clinton general election matchup shows the real estate mogul with a double-digit deficit. And a potential blowout loss could have a major impact on down-ballot races. Case in point: Just eight of the 21 GOP senators up for re-election in 2016 have said they would unquestionably support Trump, according to an NBC News count.”
“Another data point to keep in mind shows just how much the confluence of statewide and national political factors have Republican biting their nails with a little more anxiety since last year. Back in November, the Cook Political Report ranked a total of five Senate races in the ‘Toss Up’ category, including four seats currently held by Republicans and just one held by Democrats. Now that’s up to six Republican-held seats, with no movement on the D side.”
“The Secret Service says people attending the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this July will not be allowed to carry guns,” The Hill reports. “The statement comes in response to a petition that calls for allowing open carry of guns inside Quicken Loans Arena, the host venue. The petition has amassed more than 43,000 signatures as of Monday morning.”
Damnit. We would have finally rounded up all the Republicans in one place, and armed them, and knowing their stupidity and homicidal tendencies, they would have all killed each other. Alas…
Politico on why McConnell will not relent in the Supreme Court fight: “The activist right has been galvanized by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s quick and forceful insistence that the Senate will not take up a high court nominee for the rest of Barack Obama’s presidency, spending millions already to defend the GOP position with likely lots more to come. Tea party groups that have dissed McConnell for years as an establishment sellout are singing his praises.”
“It’s safe to say all of that would end the instant Republicans agreed to take up Merrick Garland’s nomination. And the fire would turn inward at the worst possible moment for Republicans, as the party is scrambling to save its narrow Senate majority in November.”
Steve Benen on the Sanders campaign’s disastrous conference call yesterday on the state of the race:
I think Devine slipped up again in a way he’ll soon regret. Mother Jones reported:
“[Hillary Clinton’s] grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories where Bernie Sanders did not compete,” said senior strategist Tad Devine. “Where we compete with Clinton, where this competition is real, we have a very good chance of beating her in every place that we compete with her.”
Devine named eight states where he said the Sanders campaign did not compete with a big presence on the ground or much on-air advertising: Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas.
According to a report from Business Insider, Devine added, “Essentially, 97% of her delegate lead today comes from those eight states where we did not compete.”No matter which candidate you like or dislike, I think it’s fair to say Team Sanders has generally run a strong campaign, exceeding everyone’s expectations, and positioning the senator as one of the nation’s most prominent progressive voices for many years to come. Sanders isn’t the first presidential candidate to run on a bold, unapologetic liberal platform, but he is arguably the first in recent memory to do in such a way as to position himself as a leader of a genuine movement.
But whether or not you’re impressed with what Sanders has put forward, his campaign’s latest pitch is an unfortunate mess.
[A]s a rule, presidential campaigns don’t get to lose a whole bunch of key primaries by wide margins and then declare, “Yeah, but we weren’t really trying.” If these eight nominating contests have left the Sanders campaign at a disadvantage they’re unlikely to overcome, it’s actually incumbent on his top aides and strategists to explain why they didn’t make more of an effort in these states. […]
At its root, Devine’s argument is that Team Sanders identified a series of early, delegate-rich states, but they chose not to bother with them. That’s not just a bad argument; it’s the kind of message that’s probably going to irritate quite a few Sanders supporters who expect more from their team.
Making matters slightly worse, Tad Devine’s pitch isn’t altogether accurate. In Virginia, for example – one of the eight primaries in which he says Team Sanders chose not to compete – plenty of campaign watchers know the senator actually made an effort in the commonwealth and lost anyway. The senator also campaigned in Texas, which is another one of the states Devine said the campaign wrote off.
As for the argument that Sanders wins “in every place that we compete with her,” even taken at face value, it’s not an especially compelling argument: Team Sanders made a real effort to win in states like Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, and Massachusetts, but he lost in each of them. […]
Devine also said the Sanders campaign chose to compete for state victories, rather than compete for delegate victories. I have no idea why the campaign would deliberately choose to compete by the wrong metric that would lead to defeat, but if I were a die-hard Sanders backer, this kind of rhetoric would be incredibly frustrating.
Bernie Sanders is running Hillary Clinton’s campaign from 2008, and he is becoming just as annoying as 2008 Hillary. And Tad Devine is doing a great job imitating Mark Penn.
takes a big person to know they are winning and continue to punch down.
I don’t see any signs that Clinton will acknowledge that Sanders voters are real people with real concerns. It is a little sad, but it will keep this thing close and hard fought to the end.
So, based on Clinton’s intransigence, I’ll update my “calling it” from yesterday. It is either Sanders outright, or a contested convention.
I’d like to have it noted for the record that my dismissal of this stupid Tad Devine comment “controversy” on the other post mentioned that it was likely a headline on Daily Kos.
Dorian Gray says:
March 29, 2016 at 10:21 am
Yeah, because that’s what the electorate is gnashing their collective teeth about presently, some esoteric comment by Tad Devine. Talk about inside baseball. I’m guessing it was a big story on MSNBC last night or maybe it was the headline on Daily Kos?
If you asked 1,000 random people on the street who Tad Devine is I’d wager $1,000 less than 3 would know who you’re talking about. It’s a mildly provocative statement that a handful of political geeks even care to parse. For all intents and purposes nobody cares.
I think you all are down some bizarre rabbit hole and have lost touch completely…. —
Then, like fucking clockwork, here’s Markos’ parsing of it. Hahaha. So great. Thanks DD for doing exactly what I expected!
I know, right? How empty is the bank account to have to try and use that nonsense?
Ben, I would love to ignore you guys. But you all are engaging in the very same reality-denying gambits that Republicans employ, and it must be combated. By April 26, after Hillary sweeps the Mid Atlantic states after winning Wisconsin, this will all be over, and you, Dorian and Jason will be onto a different stage of grief.
Sanders has to “change his tone” but Clinton has to do nothing to respond to a a trouncing over the weekend. Still waiting to hear why those contests dont matter (aside from the DNC’s delegate rules) Why don’t those voters matter?
Is it because Clinton’s campaign message is “it’s me or Trump”? I realize a bunch of kids don’t mean shit to the DNC… I get it…. but Washington voters are 75% under35… so DD….. you’re Clinton’s biggest champion here. Why dont those voters matter to you?
Ive said a thousand times I know Sanders wont be the nominee. What is so off-putting to me is your (and others, but the past 2 days, specifically you… ) attitude about it. It really reads that you view Sanders, and his voters, and his platform, with absolute contempt.. Clinton needs those votes to beat Trump and if “Suck it up and vote for me” is the message, things will not go well.
and…. that isnt even really HER message… it’s just the line all of her supporters seem to be using.
DD: What will be all over? Pointing out that Hillary is the best Republican candidate in the race?
Will you be on to a different stage of gloating by then? And what are you gloating for? The success of the TPP?
You act as if Hillary winning a rigged contest is some sort of accomplishment.
A true winner would be trying to win over their vanquished foes… not rub in in their face and try and add insult to injury. If you really feel it’s over, it’s time to start healing the wounds and bringing people into the tent. … or you DONT feel that it’s over, which means there’s no reason at all for Jason to stop “callin it”
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/274543-supreme-court-upholds-mandatory-union-fees-in-4-4-tie
Suck it Scalia, you fat-ass, cardiac arrest having MF’er.
It’s already clear that losing the fifth conservative vote has done as much damage to the conservative agenda as adding a fifth liberal would.
I’d like to have it noted for the record that my dismissal of this stupid Tad Devine comment “controversy” on the other post
And it is, of course, a predictably superficial “dismissal”. Tad Devine is working at papering over a bit of political malpractice. There’s no excuse for not running a 50 state strategy AND there is no excuse for communicating to your supporters that counting votes doesn’t matter. Any campaign manager worth the title knows how to count votes — and for a Presidential you have to count multiple times. Primary votes, votes for delegates (where they have to get them), delegate votes, then votes again, then Electoral Votes. There’s no consideration for a candidate’s decision not to contest everyplace, especially after it looked like said candidate was way more viable than expected. Asking people to hang their hats on won states, asks them to buy into the “momentum” narrative when Bernie has a campaign that needs counted votes — not the feel good of a few won states.
Donald Trump’s campaign manager was just arrested and charged with battery
Cassandra is one of the 3 out of 1,000 who gives a shit Devine’s comment. And such in depth analysis! A waste of seven sentences. Good for you.
Also of note, I like the way you use my criticism of you (predictable) back on me. How creative!
Of course when you start with predictably superficial, you have no where to go in response. You’re probably better off explaining to all of us why the fact that millions of people paid to see the new Batman movie makes that movie genuinely great. That crowdsplaining might be fun.
But don’t hurt yourself.
I’ve been told you’re really not a complete bore in person, but I don’t know what to believe.
I have no opinion on the Batman movie and I don’t know what “crowdsplaining” is. It sounds like made-up nonsense, but that might just be because you wrote it. You have a certain way that makes everything sound boring and dumb.
I think it means if a lot of people decide a certain way, something happens…. that also sounds like a democracy. Then there is DNC math where 72% of the voters in one state mean nothing. Probably because they are dumb kids.
The Devine comments are important only if the nomination is still in doubt. The delegate math is worth parsing only if the nomination is still in doubt. Arguing about the people representing the policies is important only if the nomination is still in doubt.
The only way for Sanders to win at this point is to somehow convince a majority of the superdelegates to back him instead of Clinton. Why would they? The are mostly elected themselves, and they mostly share Clinton’s views and instincts, not his.
His supporters have it backwards. You win over the party by taking it over at the local level, and I can’t see anyone dislodging the dinosaurs who control the state Democratic Party at the local levels. In 20 years maybe, but not today.
The Democratic Party and the progressive movement are pursuing different paths. After this election, even more of the “centrist” Republicans will join its ranks, pulling it even further to the right; Delaware’s elected officials will move to the new center, as they have been doing since 1992.
Cassandra,
re Trump’s head thug…. It’s stuff like that, that reminds me these BernieBro/Sec Clinton-supporter (we still dont have a mean-spirited word for those kind folks…. 😉 ) spats mean nothing once it comes time to defeat the giant, yet still small handed, pile of shit.
I just hope Bernie Sanders stays in the race to the end so Hillary has to keep telling me things I want to hear before she sells me down the river to more wars, bigger banks and crappy trade agreements.
SA, even if she gives empty lip service to those things, it will support lower-level candidates with the same message. Im willing to give this incrementalism a try on a few things, and if it means a few politicians lie to me in order to make the ones who are being truthful sound less “crazy”, bring it on. If nothing else, it means Trump wont be filling the SCOTUS.
The delegate math is the only pathway to winning a nomination. It is still about counting.
The Democratic Party and the progressive movement are pursuing different paths.
I would argue that there is a progressive movement every 4 years. This movement exists as a functioning movement (as in working to capture the flag) in some areas of the US, but in the main this movement comes out to be involved in the system during Presidentials and then spend the next 4 years being disappointed that things don’t change. You are right that the takeover happens at the local level. And in many places in Delaware, that is a function of routinely showing up. I’ve made this point multiple times — and for everyone who believes that Bernie Sanders is somehow going to overcome the Congress that Obama has had to deal with just because there is a *movement* is not paying attention.
That all rings true to me. There appear to be a lot of people who support progressive initiatives theoretically, but only get involved sporadically.
We’ve been through “which is lacking, leadership or follower-ship?” threads enough that I have been swayed. They both are.
Agreed, Sander’s has no chance of getting his agenda through congress. What makes anyone think Hillary will have any easier time? Most of them have built their careers bashing her, they simply cant even APPEAR to work with her. It doesnt matter if she puts forward an agenda that would make Carper go “hey now, that’s a little too conservative” . They opposed Obama because he is black, they will oppose her because she is a woman (which is unforgivable to GOPS).. but also because she is Hillary Clinton.
The party will have to unite, and it will need the MASSIVE base of support that Sanders has built. It is the DNC’s responsibility to convince these people, NOT “those peoples” responsibility to accept the DNC.
The party will have to unite, and it will need the MASSIVE base of support that Sanders has built.
It will unite and Clinton will get some of Sanders’ support. But it doesn’t matter the size of the base of support (cf, Obama’s 2008 , 2012 wins), if that base won’t be engaged over the long term. Which, of course, the Chris Coons and the Tom Carpers of the party count on. The rabble rousers (in the main) retreat until there is another Presidential. It is how Debbie Wasserman Schultz keeps her job.
THIS:
“But it doesn’t matter the size of the base of support (cf, Obama’s 2008 , 2012 wins), if that base won’t be engaged over the long term.”
I’ve never understood this. If Liberals/Progressives voted in the midterms we’d change the make-up of Congress. What motivation do Dem candidates have to move to the left when the only chance they have to win in off year elections is to move to the center. If Liberals/Progressive want a seat at the table we have to show up. We don’t do that. We’re unreliable. Which means we get the Congress we don’t vote for.
Oh Boy… Here we go again… when the progressive electorate has nothing to vote for it doesn’t vote. I will never blame liberals for staying home when the choice is a Republican (e.g Ken Simpler) and a slightly less noxious Republican (e.g John Carney).
As Cassandra points out, every four years or so, they get energized to take part in Presidential. And they were ready to go to bat for Obama in the mid-term.. but why bother when he wasn’t going to bat for them, or his own damn self. Why do liberals always have to meet moderates more than half-way? Fuck that.
Or when a candidate comes along who finally gets millions of new voters interested, they see the party they are being told to be loyal to discounting them and calling their ideas dumb…. or when they see a 72-% 27% written off as meaningless.
What if someone told you your victory was meaningless, and the person who was presumed to win all along will win? You can vote all you want, but it’s already been decided. suck it.
Why should people think their vote is ever going to matter? STILL WAITING, btw, for a real explanation, (not just parroting Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s) as to why 72% of the voters in Washington dont mean anything. Maybe my tone is too demanding.
DD wrote:
“Bernie had an expected good weekend, and some fools decided that it meant he was absolutely going to be the nominee, despite the math, despite the upcoming slate of primaries that all favor Hillary by large margins, despite the history that Plouffe so expertly lays out. Boy, some of you are going to have to eat a lot of crow in May. Do you like Ketchup to go with it? ”
I’ve held my tongue long enough on this. Uh, that’s not party building. That’s triumphalism like that of a fan taking pride b/c his team’s winning. As if the fan has had anything to do with the team winning. And it’s pretty much what we’ve read every day from the commenter.
Giving people who support Sanders the finger in this fashion is not going to encourage those people to rush out and support Hillary, if she’s the nominee.
I for one am tired of that tone.
That’s a big assumption, Jason, because we don’t have any idea of why they don’t show up. A better and more effective way of making that point would be to show up and vote while leaving certain candidate’s boxes unchecked. That would show actual figures.
first of all.. El Som… amen…
Pandora, people cant be berated into doing what “you” (not YOU, you, but the general you… I hate interwebz sometimes) want. Especially when it comes to casting their vote. DD, and others are trying to tell every person who hasn’t voted in a primary yet, that they might as well not because it’s gonna be Clinton. The DNC, with their super-delegates have spoken. I have been more involved than many of my friends over the past 8 years and I fail to see why I should cast my lot with the DNC when they clearly care so little about my vote. I make my voice heard, and I hear back “shut up, hippie”
Ben, I’ll answer your question. It’s the delegate math. States receive a certain number of delegates. Think about the Electoral College. It’s why when you look at that map at the end of the Presidential election you see so much red but the blue wins. It’s why Florida and Ohio matter (lots of electors/delegates) and Delaware, Wyoming, North Dakota don’t.
In 2008 we were making the exact same argument for Obama. The math was in – and barring huge victories (wipe-outs) in every remaining state – and the primary was essentially over.
Nobody is saying those votes don’t count. What’s being said is they aren’t enough to overtake Clinton’s lead and when you factor in the remaining states the lead holds to the end – unless Sanders can win the remaining states big.
You’re right, Pandora. The one change I see since 2008 is that, by this time in 2008, D’s were pretty much coalescing around Obama. Remember how Markell and Carney, both running for Governor at the time, hastily endorsed Obama right before he came to Delaware (and right after Michelle Obama blew the roof off the Grand the week before)?
This time around, Clinton’s polling numbers have declined over the past month. Not precipitously. And probably not enough to cost her the nomination. But I’d sure like to see the candidate on an upswing at this point rather than playing defense.
@pandora: “If Liberals/Progressives want a seat at the table we have to show up. We don’t do that. We’re unreliable.”
Progressives and liberals always vote. They don’t stay home out of spite or boredom. The people you need to worry about motivating are those who lean your way but need a reason to get off the couch.
Agreed, El Som. Know what else I remember? The PUMAs. Guess this is just the nature of the primary.
But puck, they have no problem getting “off the couch” in a presidential year. I actually understand people who never vote (don’t agree with them), but I do not understand not getting off the couch to vote in an off year when you voted 2 years earlier. I swear, some of them think they’re electing a king instead of a president.
Pandora, so i “know” how it works… and thank you for a real answer.. but it isnt me the DNC has to convince. It’s first time voters.
Those people who never get off their couches are more engaged now than many of them have ever been. What do they get for their enthusiasm? Someone who has been running for president for 16 years, and “adults” telling them they are stupid.
In electing Obama, no liberals thought they were electing a king, or a messiah (as haters always want to pretend) .. we also didn’t think we were electing a President who would pursue turnout crushing objectives like cutting social security, which is what we elected.
Well, at least I’ll forget ‘Bernie Bros’. But I’ll point out that, like me, many of those who have been labeled as such preferred Elizabeth Warren as the progressive standard-bearer.
I’d have been delighted to be a ‘Liz Lackey’ this time around.
To Ben and El Som and to anyone else holding the same opinion…
I will back off regarding my tone. I would like however to see that reciprocated. For example, I will not be insulting to Bernie, his campaign or his supporters so long as Bernie supporters are not insulting to Hillary, her campaign or her supporters. This is a two way street. Same rules for everyone. Bernie Sanders supporters do not get to attack Hillary as a corrupt criminal Republican and then complain about my tone. If you do that, I will treat you with the disrespect you deserve. If, however, you think she is too moderate, and say so, and argue that Bernie is the more progressive candidate, fine. That argument has truth to it and does not deserve disrespect.
My tone will also return with a vengeance if any of you start endorsing the BernieorBust Vote for Trump Sarandon position. You all can support Bernie and vote for Bernie, while I will support Hillary and vote for Hillary, and that will be the end of it. I will simply post polling numbers and excerpts from the leading commentators in the national political realm. I will hold off on my negative commentary against Sanders.
Deal?
I give up. This is politics. Everyone on this site knows how it’s played; everyone here understands delegate math. For months I have read, on this blog, horrible things said about Clinton and I took most of it in stride because I know what’s coming in the general for Hillary or Bernie. And this spat will pale in comparison.
Bernie is losing the primary. To change that will take a pledged delegate miracle, but it’s possible. I will tell you that when Sanders and his supporters go after Obama they cost him votes. I never understood why he went there.
I like that deal, DD!
And they were ready to go to bat for Obama in the mid-term.. but why bother when he wasn’t going to bat for them, or his own damn self. Why do liberals always have to meet moderates more than half-way? Fuck that.
The job of a “movement” is bigger than this. And if it was a true “movement”, it wouldn’t matter in the long run who was at the top of the ticket and how they performed. Barry Goldwater got his ass handed to him and yet the conservative “movement” survives. Not because there was some magic President who gave everyone who votes in a primary what they wanted, but because the movement’s concerns were being addressed and in a fairly incremental way. This movement showed up to everything — taking over their local party infrastructure, running and wining in local elections, grooming a fairly deep bench of wingnuts who now are able to make all of that wingnuttery look like normal discourse. All of the young people who moved McGovern to the nomination went home. No movement, even though there was plenty to still work on. You can wait for someone to inspire you, or you can work at capturing the flag. You can decide which is more effective (and more reliable) in the long term.
Deal. Susan Sarandon is a fool. She probably had too much exposure to Leary’s ashes at Burningman or something.
No, she is just exhibiting some white privilege of her own, conscious or not. She is rich enough that she knows she will not be hurt by a Trump presidency. She forgets that millions cannot possibly play games with this election, and that a Trump/Cruz Presidency would be disastrous for them.
Cassandra, that’s a fair point, but I’d add that the post Goldwater movement wasn’t some magical leaderless happening. For one there was Goldwater himself with ‘Conscience of a Conservative’ , F. Clifton White, William F. Buckley, the conservative fundraiser Marvin Liebman, the two of them putting together the’ Young Americans for Freedom’.
They had leadership and an infrastructure.
I don’t know what Susan Sarandon said, but I’ll make this heretical point:
Candidate, make a case. If it is better than the other person’s I’ll vote for you. If it isn’t, I will not. And I will not be badgered into voting for someone, or promise my vote to someone prior to hearing their case.
Deal.
Jason,
If the candidates in the Presidential election are Clinton v. Trump, or Clinton v. Cruz, then you should know who you are voting for already. If you don’t, then I don’t want to know you anymore, and consider you to be as much as a fool as Ralph Nader or Susan Sarandon.
Please. What don’t you chill the fuck out? I think I get the cases being made by Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, and Trump. I’m saying that I don’t go for the loyalty oath system.
They had leadership and an infrastructure.
They had people with ideas and a GOP Party infrastructure to capture. Out of all of the organizing work that conservatives did to take over their party, Bill Buckley certainly did no grass roots work. That was done by the people who believed in a thing and showed up to get it done. They didn’t sit on their hands because LBJ won or because Reagan raised the Social Security tax ceiling. Because if you are working on the long enough time horizon, leadership won’t matter as much as who is helping you move the ball forward. It was icing on the cake that GOP “principles” put their thumb on the scale for business and wealthy interests, so the money flowed. A thing that got Bill Clinton’s attention (not for the better).
I suppose it would be churlish to point out that movement conservatives care so much about politics and show up so often because the rest of their lives are so fucked up they have nothing else to do, whereas the rest of us have, y’know, actual lives.
Howard Dean put together an organization and got his folks involved…and that was instrumental in President Obama’s win. I have no wish to exclude or belittle Sanders voters…I’d like to hand this apparatus over to them and learn to watercolor. I’ve climbed these stairs for years. But I’d like to see THAT team put it together and keep it together. Why is that the job for Hillary?
A lot of this winds up looking suspiciously…wait for it, I’m going there…sexist. WE showed up to vote for Sanders, what do you have for lunch? Not only Hillary, but her supporters and campaign are expected to be mommies to the whole business, while Uncle Bernie and the boys talk about important stuff in the living room. If it’s not the campaign version, it’s sure the facebook version. And combating that requires leadership from Uncle Bernie, and not bitchin’ from the kitchen.
But, ElSom, I’d be a Liz Lacky in a heartbeat. I’m hoping for the day she lets me put down my nets.
You have no wish to exclude or belittle Sanders supporters… then you do just that. With that one comment, you completely dismissed any actual concerns people who support Sanders have, labeled us all as sexist and shallow, and have again (i dont know if you did this before, but it is a common theme) insinuated that only men support Sanders. Do you know any women under 35?
show up so often because the rest of their lives are so fucked up they have nothing else to do
Not churlish, really. I was thinking about this last night as I went to a late campaign planning event at the last minute. Limited time is a reality for most of us. We either have to stop working at convincing ourselves that there is a grassroots movement or we need more of us to get involved over the long run — to make up for our overcommitted lives.
I agree in part, Brooke. There’s definitely sexism at play because there’s a woman candidate. However, it’s always the job of the primary winner to reach out to the primary loser’s supporters. We expected this from Obama and rightly so, but Hillary’s unwavering support of him paved the way.
So yes, Hillary has a big responsibility to Bernie supporters and Bernie has a big responsibility, too. It isn’t a one way street.
It is always a candidate’s job to convince voters first. It is never the voter’s job to support the candidate first. Any campaign that assumes it is entitled to voters is a losing one…. unless that campaign is a Democrat, with party support, in Delaware.
I’ve said it before, if everything I have come to admire about Sanders is real, he will be one of Clinton’s best surrogates… He must understand the danger Trump poses, and surely knows that preserving the nation (and probably the world) needs to be a thing for any of his policy ideas to be able to occur. (although, if everything is rubble, there is no 1%)
Clinton will have to adopt some of the ideas that Sanders has gained so much support with, but I think he will still work hard for her.
Sure, the nominee has a responsibility to convince voters. That said, if your candidate is running as a Dem then I don’t understand why it would take that much convincing. In 2008, there were a few Clinton supporters that had a temper tantrum and went to McCain – but that just told me that they didn’t really have principles. Because, really, how do you justify that?
No matter what people say we have two candidates whose positions, and voting records, mirror each other 95% of the time. Bernie and his supporters have a responsibility, too. And if Bernie were to pull this out I’d say the same thing about Clinton and her supporters. In the end, primaries are a family fight – as in, we get to say what we want about our family member, but everyone outside the family (Republicans) need to STFU.
Hillary’s support of Obama was rewarded with a Cabinet position. What will she do to reward Bernie’s support?
Ben, a dynamic can be sexist, but not be about men. Shocking, I know. The vast majority of the people I talk to every day are under 35, and many of them Sanders supporters. Most of them women.
If I was not clear, the assumption that it is on the Hillary campaign ( composed of both men and women) to collect up Sanders supporters ( composed of both men and women), is not similar to these assumptions in previous campaigns. When John Edwards crapped out, it was hoped he would turn his supporters over to the nominee, not that the nominee had to talk about his background in the mills to entice them. The nominee has to reach out, absolutely. The nominee would be wise to understand voter motivation before going to the general. Sure. But the idea that the nominee, if it’s Hillary, has to ferret out why Bernie’s supporters are voting for him, and then make some kind of special policy concession, when, effectively, they run on similar voting records, is an idea that looks a lot like sexism.
What would Hillary promise to Sanders supporters that would make a difference? If Sanders is the nominee, all I want from him is to beat the Republican candidate.
And to be clear, I LIKE Senator Sanders. I’ve been retweeting him and posting memes of what he says for years. I just don’t think the job he’s running for is a good fit for his talents. That’s my assessment. It doesn’t have to be yours.
What would Hillary promise to Sanders supporters that would make a difference?
$15 minimum wage, for starters. That concession alone would give her instant credibility and be a pledge of good faith with a big chunk of Sanders supporters.
Brook, for me…Flatly stating that NAFTA is a mistake and caused massive job losses, putting foward a plan to give priority to companies who employ Americans, opposing fracking outright and taking a generally more urgent stance on fighting climate change would satisfy me personally.
I know she isnt Bill. But she was very active in his administration. She was an important part of it, so fair or not, is tied to it in the public eye. Even IF NAFTA can be attributed to compromise with the Republican congress, he still signed it and took credit for the short-term economic gains it yielded. She doesnt even have to lie and say she always opposed it. “It turns out it hurt the middle class more than it helped, and we need a new system”. Once sentence.
I dont give a crap about positions on marriage equality, or criminal justice she took in the past. (I DO care where she stands now, and I seem to agree with it). I don’t even really care anymore that she voted for the Iraq war… (disclaimer, I will bring up all these things if meaningless, decades old statements from another candidate are trotted out)
I just dont get the “sexist dynamic”. There are people, who call themselves progressives, who dont support Clinton because they are sexists. These people are few. There are also staunch feminists who support Sanders who would take great offense at the casual charges of sexism whenever anyone criticizes Hillary Clinton. She is a very powerful person, who has had a long political career where she has done a lot of good. She has also done much to criticize. Please explain why questioning and being critical of a powerful person seeking greater power is anything other than patriotic.
Huge Sanders supporter here who is very doubtful of 15/minimum. I think it is too simplistic, doesn’t take in to account that different areas have different costs of living, (15/hr in Newark, De is wonderful…. in NYC, it’s still a poverty wage) and doesn’t focus on things like PTO (a person could get 15/hr, but only be scheduled for 20 hrs a week). I get that it is a good place to start negotiations from and makes a good talking point, but unless we are going to address the many issues facing low-medium skilled jobs, it’s just a shiny catchphrase.
Greg Dworkin at Daily Kos: “It is nearly impossible to discuss Bernie not winning or being behind without alienating some Bernie voters (at least I haven’t figured out how).”
Ben.. the things you suggested are all big changes for Hillary and would cause major tension among her current supporters and donor base. But $15 is an easy-to-understand change that would win her more supporters than it would cost her – especially among the younger voters where she needs to win them over. And it is easily do-able for her, now.
Hillary and Bernie both understand that the minimum wage they campaign on is a negotiating position. If you start with $12 you will end up with $10. But if you want $12, start with $15. That is also true with most of Bernie’s tax increases.
I criticize Hillary, and I don’t think criticism of Hillary is intrinsically sexist. And I might be lying across the route of one of those pipelines. I just think that it is easier for some people to place expectations on our candidates based on traditional roles, not necessarily out of malice, but because the cultural norms run downhill, that way.
But if protection for American jobs is the priority, I’m all in. Gonna need a lot of governors on board, for that.
But do you see how that, admittedly very valid, observation would really irk some people? I find it particularly troublesome given that there is someone running for president, whom you basically HAVE to be a sexist to support.
Puck, I worry that not enough Sanders supporters understand it is a negotiation position. (I say Sanders supporters, because I think we, in general, are more idealistic whereas Clinton supporters tend to be more pragmatic… I feel the progressive cause needs both.. but at present, needs idealists more.) He doesnt do a good enough job communicating that is what it is. But I guess even progressives fall victim to bumper-sticker politics.
Despite all our talk about Hillary and Bernie, we haven’t spent much time here discussing their specific positions in detail. The main thing is to get Hillary to make more specific commitments. Remember Obama saying “I didn’t campaign on the public option” even though it was published in his campaign health care plan? We need to avoid that kind of situation with Hillary. Her issues checklist is awesome but we need her to overtly campaign on those issues, preferably on YouTube.
That…and not get caught in sloppy flaps. There is a disgusting double standard, where the Repukes can say whatever they want and contradict themselves and it’s ok. But Clinton will be blasted for ever misstep. It isnt fair, but it’s how the game is currently being played.. and you can either oppose the rules and lose, or play by them, win, then try to change them.
Specifically, Clinton needs to stop doing things like…. the Nancy Reagan gaffe, asking “Where was Bernie in 1993?” …. She’s definitely a better politician than that.