I’m laughing and crying at the same time.
1 Like
Two things, the first being that you cannot credibly strongly favor a candidate and then claim that they are the same. People don’t buy it because it doesn’t make a lot of sense. I get that there are a lot of similarities and the candidates are closer together than anyone is to Trump, but the differences that do exist seem to matter to people. I think trying to close down that discussion isn’t helpful, and I think it really insults the people you want to win over. They want to talk about the issues that they feel Hillary isn’t taking seriously enough, and I see no reason the Clinton side can’t oblige that discussion. Especially if there aren’t substantive policy differences. It makes me actively suspect that there are substantive policy differences since the discussion always seems to veer towards how the Bernie supporters are always irrational, always uncompromising, always this, and always that. For people who claim they’re making a practical choice, the rhetoric doesn’t match… well, the rhetoric. In purely mercenary terms: Every vote counts, and a Bernie supporter is more likely to sway in favor of Hillary than Trump, but it’s obvious that they want to be courted rather than ordered around. They’re easy pickings and it’s surprising that the Hillary camp wants to pretend they don’t need them. If they really don’t need Bernie supporters, then then they should stop accusing them of various betrayals.
The second thing: If you trust the candidates the platform can be taken literally. If you don’t trust the candidates, what they say is meaningless. This is something I’d like to see Hillary supporters at least understand, even if they don’t like it: People don’t believe Hillary. I don’t believe Hillary. I think her failure to engage Bernie voters speaks to a hesitance to substantively embrace their platform.
When it comes to honesty, I think candidates are generally in the habit of promising the world during the campaign and compromising in office. Obama lost a lot of fights because he couldn’t possibly win them all, whether he wanted to or not. To this extent, every candidacy is an exercise in dishonesty. This includes Bernie Sanders, by the way, but that’s something I want to get back to. The problem with Hillary is that people see her for what she really truly and indisputably is: A career politician with a pandering problem. Don’t tell me she doesn’t pander, we all know she does. It’s enough to make people who don’t like her cringe. What people don’t understand about most Bernie supporters (because as always you can point to the most embarrassing minority segment and pretend they represent a broader trend) is that they know better than to assume Bernie will get 100% of what he wants. They understand that compromises will dilute the outcomes. They’re not stupid (Gosh! Who’d have thunk it?!) What they get from Bernie is a sincerity of effort. A sense that he won’t give up when the going gets tough. Trust. Asking people to vote for a candidate they don’t trust is a futile effort, because they can say all the right things and they don’t matter one bit.
As for Bernie, whom I promised to get back to: He’s lost a lot of relevance- which is why I’d really like to see the Clintonites back down from fighting his ghost. We get it, you’ve won. Try to win the other parts of the campaign now, please. Yes, there’s a whole other election that makes bashing Bernie supporters a waste of your time. Worse than that: It’s counter-productive. Being a bad winner and fighting a won battle is a path to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
As for me? I’m voting for Jill Stein. I live in a red state and it turns out Bernie supporters can do electoral math.
14 Likes
Bernie - GOOD ANSWER
I’d really like to see the Clintonites back down from fighting his ghost. We get it, you’ve won.
I’m not a “Clinonite” though. I voted for Bernie. Anyone encouraging disappointed Bernie voters to back third party candidates, write-ins, or abstention is working to elect Trump.
5 Likes
Again, to the point of whether insulting these people is the best strategy: That admonition doesn’t work. Have you seen it ever work? That could also be considered to be working to elect Trump.
See: The Van Jones interview I posted in the Why (or why not) Vote Hillary thread. There was a lot in there that was persuasive that didn’t boil down to “you’re supporting Trump.”
3 Likes
My state is going to vote GOP regardless of voter fraud, election fraud, and me writing in “Cheese Steak”
I get to write in what I want and doesn’t help Trump in the slightest.
7 Likes
I agree with you.
Having voted for Nader in 2000, I get where the Bernie-or-Bust people are coming from. Or at least, I can recall where they’re coming from. But that was back when I assessed candidates mainly on their platform, not on their executive style or capacity for leadership.
Trump’s platform is adaptive to whatever will get him votes, but his executive style and outright sociopathy spells disaster for the country—hell, the _world—_should he be elected into office. The man is far more vile than whatever policies du jour he’s selling.
Clinton is no virtuous leader herself and her platform (and voting record) deserve criticism. But she has demonstrated political competency and the ability to rally legislative votes and break arms if necessary. Put to good use (and yes, there’s an implied ‘if’ there), that matters much more to me than her particular platform.
4 Likes
no, no it isn’t. that is a lie that has used to pull the wool over people’s eyes for years, prop up the 2 party system, and push the lesser of two evils voting mentality. it is exactly how the vote is controlled.
voting for a third candidate is not giving your support to either candidate, duh.
9 Likes
And “anyone encouraging disappointed Rubio voters to back third party candidates, write-ins, or abstention is working to elect…” who exactly?
A third party vote is NOT a vote for “the other side.” It’s a third party vote.
Also let me drag this one out yet again…
7 Likes
Call me cynical, but I don’t see citizen voters tearing the parties apart. When you have a two-party system this entrenched, the only seismic fissures will occur within the upper hierarchies. Otherwise, sure, they’ll notice that they may have lost a smidgen of their respective constituencies to either Johnson or Sanders. It’s just that they won’t care.
They don’t care. These voters are not perceived as a threat. The only reason the Republican establishment is biting their nails right now is because—and this is their phrasing—Trump creates a ‘brand problem’ for the Republican party.
A ‘brand problem’. They don’t even see it as a political threat, but a marketing one. That’s how much contempt they have for their citizenry.
The Democratic party shows contempt by being a complacent, slightly less centre-right (thanks, Bill!) party whose current sales pitch is ‘We’re not the Republicans’. And it’s immensely frustrating that they’re the only realistic choice. But they are.
3 Likes
It hasn’t been the same 2 parties since our country was founded, things have shifted and will shift again. when enough third party support emerges is the only way that a thrid party would ever be considered viable, and when that happens you’ll see a lot of change.
i get being cynical though…the current 2 party rigged election theater makes even the optimistic idealists weep.
5 Likes
I can see a bifurcation of the current parties happening, just not a competing third-party.
[quote=“crashproof, post:29, topic:80382”]
And “anyone encouraging disappointed Rubio voters to back third party candidates, write-ins, or abstention is working to elect…” who exactly?
[/quote]Hillary. Which is why many of us are rather cheerful about the GOP’s efforts to sink Trump or sit out the election.
2 Likes
[quote=“redesigned, post:28, topic:80382”]
no, no it isn’t. that is a lie that has used to pull the wool over people’s eyes for years, prop up the 2 party system, and push the lesser of two evils voting mentality. it is exactly how the vote is controlled.
[/quote]It’s not a “mentality” or a lie, or some deep dark conspiracy by the country’s elites. It’s a well understood byproduct of something called Duverger’s law in political science, which explains how many political parties an electoral system will produce given that system’s rules.
3 Likes
So you’re saying a vote for any third-party candidate is a vote simultaneously for Trump and for Clinton.
Okay then.
1 Like
Why not Jill Stein? She’ll be on the ballot.
2 Likes
I’d actually vote for Hillary too if she’d give me something to vote for rather than being the lesser of two evils.
So far it doesn’t even look like there’s going to be much of a nod to the anti-establishment left, is there?
4 Likes
Ditto here.
That’s silly and bad advice. A vote fro a non-candidate is a vote for nobody. It harms and helps no person running. A vote for trump that was going to be cast for a non-candidate actually helps trump.
I believe that the thought behind a sanders vote at this stage is more or less to cause something within the Left/Democratic system by showing how many people the sanders platform attracted.
And I would remind you of the many many instances of Clinton supporters and staff outright saying that sanders supporters were not actual democrats and therefore sec Clinton didn’t need to address their issues. So even Clinton thinks those votes don’t matter.
3 Likes
Because a Nader vote never hurt us.
Bush didn’t really screw us too much more than Gore would have. Just an extra war, 5000 or so US KIAs (a milliion Iraqi deaths), $2-3 trillion dollars burned up in wars and tax cuts, ridiculously conservative SCOTUS justices, inattention to global warming, Guantanamo, illegal mass surveillance. Nothing much.
Now, if you actually think Trump is the better, safer, smarter candidate, then by all means vote for your third-party “protest” candidate who has no possibility of winning. But if you recognize Trump is a terrible, dangerous candidate and you are in a swing state and you still do your protest vote thing…
7 Likes
