What other option would you suggest? If Clinton does, in fact, get the nomination, are you saying that it’s better to either not vote at all or to support a third-party candidate to appease your own pride rather than vote for someone who holds the same party values as Sanders, if not his conviction or promise?
1 Like
I’ve been trying to ignore the Republicans, are any of the establishment candidates saying ‘vote Trump, get Clinton’ yet?
1 Like
-
She doesn’t hold the same values as Sanders and won’t live up to progressive desires.
-
If people did what you suggest (not vote or go third party), it would send a message to the Democrats that if you don’t field a candidate that represents the values of the voters, you can’t rely on their votes just because you aren’t the GOP. Voting for her anyway sends the opposite message: we’ll eat whatever shit they feed us.
4 Likes
That sounds great, and I commend you on your idealism. But if Sanders does not win the democratic nomination, and doesn’t run as an independent, then what will you do? From your comment, that seems to mean “not vote.” Which is fine, that’s your right. But if the scenario in which Clinton wins the democratic nomination plays out, does your abstinence from voting in the election not increase the chance that the Republican nominee will win the presidency?
Look, I’m not american, so I don’t have as good of feel for the political landscape there as you might. But it seems to me that progress in the US has a history of being incremental. It also seems possible to vote for someone, but subsequently criticize and advocate against some of their policies/choices. I believe Cory Doctorow suggested Canadians vote Trudeau because he was most likely to defeat Harper and the Conservatives, DESPITE the fact Trudeau supported things like the TPP and Bill C-51.
Oh, and if the linked Guardian article is to be believed, Sanders has supported the CIA drone program and continued war in Afghanistan.
1 Like
It’s out of context, but not out of context. Discussions that circle around fear of the other always support status quo candidates regardless if they are about who wins a primary or the main contest.
Homie said they’d vote for a different party than support the corporatist candidate. That’s an embodiment of a sentiment I’ve also expressed, better a legitimate enemy than a windsock. I don’t agree re: the election, but my point is that whether it’s the nomination, the election or any other aspect, status quo supporters always go to their first goto, fear of other, to dissuade principled voting and directly encourage people to vote against their interests, or not at all.
It’s a kinder, gentler form of voter suppression. Call it big tent voter suppression expression.
Note that despite attempts, the status quo supporter doesn’t talk policy, unless it comes back to fear. Despite open invites to do so, SC nominations are the first mention of such, and it’s fear based.
1 Like
Not in the great state of California where I live. We have this electoral college thing and California is an eternal blue state.
Canada analogies don’t apply because the United States doesn’t have a parliamentary system.
In other words, while refusing to vote, you’re also hoping other people vote Democrat enough to prevent a Republican from winning. Yes?
1 Like
I didn’t use the word “hope” anywhere. I don’t care how they vote as long as it is with their conscience.
Recognizing the political realities of my state isn’t the same as expressing a personal desire.
I’d accept a GOP president if it finally caused the Democrats to actually represent the interests and desires of the rest of the country in an upset.
So far, most polls show him doing well and even beating all of them. None of those candidates (with the possibly exception of Rubio, who has been treading farther right in the campaign) appeal to anyone but the far right. They are too radical for most moderate republics, so they’ll either not come out, or vote for a third party or even the democrat.
[ETA] I see that @buddybradley beat me to it, with links!
1 Like
So would you be gutsy enough to do the same thing if you lived in a swing state like Ohio, Iowa or Florida?
Where I live has no effect on my voting my conscience.
After the last few elections, I refuse to vote for candidates who don’t actually represent me or my values.
2 Likes
If Sanders – who, remember, is an independent who is caucasing with the Democrats – does not win the nomination I will be looking at what the Green and Socialist parties are doing.
If progressive voters stopped accepting the false dichotomy, and stopped buying whatever the Democrats sell just because they’re not Republicans, we would have a much stronger Left in this country.
3 Likes
Having voted Green myself in the past, I’d love to know what they’re doing. If they treated themselves like parties that were worth voting for, rather than “the other parties you can throw a vote away on”, I think a lot of people would pay them more attention. But they’ve been almost entirely silent through the campaigning thus far.
This is perhaps the most nuanced response to the “what if Sanders doesn’t win the nomination” scenario. While everyone else has said it would be bullshit to vote for Clinton in that case, the hypothesis being that the Democrats would lose, then choose a more left leaning candidate next time, this is actually something substantive that could be done. Why aren’t progressives trying to build a viable alternative to the Democrats if they loathe them so much?
Disclosure: I’m Canadian, we sort of have a multi-party system in this country, but the makeup of our parliament still fails to reflect the diversity of political opinion.
1 Like
Some of Jill Stein’s snark about Bernie Sanders a few months ago made me lose some of my respect for her, actually.
I would speculate that most Green voters are throwing their support behind Bernie, and the party isn’t going to put up a fight about that. I think the Greens should up their game this year in terms of local/state elections, more than ever. If Hilary wins the nomination I expect to see Stein’s campaign trying to take off but there’s way too much catching up to do.
1 Like
Absolutely, I know that’s the case with me. I’ve respected the Green platform in the past, but Bernie Sanders is a better Green-focused candidate than Jill Stein, with a far better chance at success. I’d rather support Bernie at the national level and but Green candidates locally.
As a non-American, I hope that Rubio/Cruz/Trump/Bush/??? isn’t inflicted on the rest of the world for 4-8 years just because there isn’t a candidate who ticks all the boxes for them in the event that Sanders doesn’t win the nomination.
The problem is that the American electoral system (and many democratic systems) cannot really avoid this end. There is no real third party - or at least, progressive americans haven’t put the energy into building one. Until there is actually an alternative to vote for, better to choose the lesser of two evils.
I don’t buy the hypothesis that the Democratic party would be moved left if people just didn’t vote for them. The political centre is fertile ground, particularly since many Republicans abandoned the party over its right wing extremism. Maybe a third party could emerge, but does the American constitution make this easy? I think the best case scenario would be a cleaving of the Democrat party, a kind of left-wing Tea Party, but politically official. That would be awesome, but would that party have much chance of governing in the current political landscape? I think a minority government in congress might cause many American’s brains to implode. The upshot of minority governments is that there is ultimately a lot of horse trading when it comes to the actual formation of law and policy anyway.
If all that can be considered unlikely in the present political landscape, an anarcho-punk rock I’m not gonna vote if my guy’s not runnin’ attitude might help some people sleep at night, but it could set back things that have been achieved by progressives - gay rights, abortion rights (at least in some states), progressive income tax at a federal level… the Republican candidates have vowed to repeal many of these things. I get the argument “don’t be cowed into voting for candidate B because candidate A (apparently) has less of a chance to beat candidate C”, but when candidate A doesn’t exist (which it won’t if Sanders doesn’t win the nomination) then I don’t think voting Clinton can be considered an act of mutiny against progressive values.
I’m not sure what values Clinton holds, other than a commitment to leverage her political position into the maximum possible personal wealth.
3 Likes
If the DNC disappoints and makes Clinton the nominee there is hella much to do. If she’s up against a nutbar like Trump, that’s all the GOTV campaign necessary or she would probably lose anyway.
So if the status quo candidate gets the nod, divert and divest. People claim that money decides it, so it would be time to put the money and effort that would otherwise go to waste supporting Clinton, and no change at all, into supporting progressive Senatorial/Congressional/State Governor/State Legislator races.
Clinton isn’t going to DO anything and there is no effective way to change that, and that’s why her supporters support her, and won’t talk policy, only fear.
Shouting that the wolves are at the door at every turn is decidedly not progressive, quite teh opposite.
Clinton can be got round if President, but the same effort would be needed to do so if the race goes to the Republican, so wasted resources on Clinton are just that. She will follow her corporatist inclinations against the will of the lower and middle class,
If Sanders gets the nod, it’d be worth the investment of a large campaign, because while the secondary effort would still be necessary, an actual progressive President makes it easier for what is won.
And let’s face it, if Sanders takes it, lots more people who would in their ignorance support a white male over a woman or black man on that basis alone will have the fight in them somewhat reduced no matter what the Cock Brothers pull.
1 Like
