Why (or why not) to vote for Bernie Sanders

Latest national poll shows Bernie Sanders beating Scott Walker, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush


Also FTA:

…Polling out last week shows [Sanders is] the only candidate from either side who has a net favorability rating.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is increasingly becoming a liability. The “he can’t win” meme against Sanders is looking increasingly ridiculous.

1 Like

And, if the status quo thinks that’s bad for them… They’re in for a goddam hell ride after July 29th.

Meanwhile, the staff at Boing Boing seems really, really focused on Don Tramp and other gimmicks.

UPDATE: Good morning. As of 10:22 AM Colorado time we are now up to 100,196 people. Yes, that’s over one hundred thousand people.


Wallace made a difference, Perot and Nader didn’t much (no matter how much people like to blame him for 2000).


Why is the first thing I notice about that map the rather unusually placed event in… Calgary?

Did the Canadians give Alberta to the USA when I wasn’t looking? I could totally understand if they did, because, well, Stephen Harper.

They lost a lot of credibility with me after the climate change denial fiasco. Plus, they’ve been consistently wrong on Sanders over time. I think they embrace conventions too much and aren’t as open to broader dynamics as they should be.

That’s not to say I discount everything they say. They obviously have a good track record (depending upon the issue), but I take a lot of their opinions with a huge grain of salt.

All that said, I think it’s already conventional wisdom that Doneld Tramp (His name is parroted quite enough already on Boing Boing) could hurt Republicans with a third party run.

[quote=“Purplecat, post:218, topic:59394”]
Why is the first thing I notice about that map the rather unusually placed event in… Calgary?
[/quote]Random. It’s been expanded worldwide by popular request for Americans who are currently located overseas. You can click on it and talk to the organizer(s) themselves, if you’d like. It’s very transparent since this is a grassroots movement as apposed to Hillary’s opaque, gimmicky astroturf campaign.

1 Like

Because he’s an amusing and sad clown who thinks he’s a contender to be president?

[quote=“albill, post:220, topic:59394”]
Because he’s an amusing and sad clown who thinks he’s a contender to be president?
[/quote]My point is that Boing Boing focuses so much on him, but hardly gives someone like Bernie Sanders the time of day. There’s no balance there. It’s sad to see Boing Boing act like other mainstream media outlets instead of something more evolved. I expected better.


I suggest you bring it up with the editors that actually participate in these forums.

I have contacted all staff, publisher and “higher ups” at Boing Boing. @doctorow, to his credit, seemed to respond with this. However, that’s sadly been an anomaly and never repeated. The norm is every other candidate gets critical attention while Sanders gets the indifferent shrug from Boing Boing (overall). I like Boing Boing and I’ve supported them in ways they’ll never know, but I think this is a very disappointing situation.


So I’m going to this Sanders event tomorrow… We’ll see how this goes. I’m interested to see what others have to say and to hear Sander’s comments via the broadcast portion of the evening.


I suspect they give attention largely to the candidates they are mocking for doing and saying stupid shit.

Or perhaps it is…a conspiracy!

I suspect that they just don’t care.

Speaking of candidates who get an indifferent shrug, should Bernie Sanders lose the Democrats’ nomination and Jill Stein win (again) the Greens’, you will then campaign just as vocally for her as you are now for him, yes?

Here is her plan, which is much the same as it was in 2012, and the platform of the Green Party in general. They compare favorably, to say the least, with Sanders’s stance on the issues that led you to endorse him.

1 Like

Why bother? She can’t win.

The difference with Sanders is that if he gets on the ballot, he may actually be able to pull a win. A non-GOP, non-Democrat presidential candidate, while admirable, is unelectable at this point.


First, because there’s more to politics, and more to life, than who wins this election. Calling attention to Green principles increases the likelihood that they’ll be acted upon. I’ve seen simply reading the Green Party platform snap others out of their cynicism, turning them into activists. Hearing Greens speak has worked wonders too.

Campaigning for a Green presidential candidate, then, might put more Greens in office at other levels of government or widen the venues at which they can speak. (The Commission on Presidential Debates, founded by Democrats and Republicans, excludes them, and mainstream media ignores them, which may have to do with Green positions on media reform and corporate power in general.)

Ultimately what matters, though, is improving the world, whether or not those changes are brought by Greens or come from government at all. If, through a greater exposure to Green principles and the pressure that it precipitates, some other party introduces their policies, or some company acts with greater social, economic, or environmental responsibility, a victory has been won.

Second, because I for one won’t surrender what little agency I have in this political system by submitting to fear of a conservative win or otherwise letting the votes of others, rather than my conscience, decide my own. I hope someday you’ll join us.

Until then, I’ll point out that responses such as this

acknowledge a problem and in the same breath compound it.


Perhaps we’re right.

1 Like

No, I won’t. I will vote for Clinton.

The groundwork for a third party win hasn’t been laid yet. There’s no foundation. If there was, Sanders would have run as an Independent third party candidate.

Unfortunately, too many Greens don’t understand proper strategy and that’s why I can’t support them at this time. I support many of their views on important issues, but not their pipe dream strategies to get there. If Sanders wins, then I can certainly see doors opening up for progressive third parties in the next 5-10 years or so.

If Clinton wins we’ll be even further away. If a Republican wins, we’ll be decades away. I’m not going to sit and watch foundations for progressive third parties get derailed for decades (yet again).

I’ve been a part of grassroots groups that have been working towards realistic gateways for progressive third party adoption. I support realistic strategies that lay foundations for progressive third parties in the future and a Sanders victory is a vital part of it.

We’re not there now and part of the reason is too many progressives shoot themselves in the foot by letting the perfect be the enemy of good and treating solidarity like a dirty word.

A Sanders victory isn’t a pipe dream due to the fact that he’s running within an entrenched infrastructure as a reformer instead of outside of it as a “radical”.

I’ve said this from the very beginning in these forums and elsewhere… If Sanders had stupidly chosen to run as an Independent for this presidential race, I wouldn’t have supported him. He’s an Independent running against an establishment Democrat as a reformist Democrat. That’s the best we’re going to do in 2016. That’s our current reality.

We’re helping to lay the groundwork for future, progressive third party growth after Sanders wins. I hope you’ll join us today, JULY 29th, 2015 in making that happen.

This day will go down in the history books after all is said and done.


Good morning. As of 10:40 AM Colorado time we are now up to 100,637 people and rapidly climbing.

Yes, that’s over one hundred thousand people.

History is being made today… If some of you reading this still don’t understand the significance of July 29th, 2015… Don’t worry, you’ll read about it later in history books.

If you don’t want history to pass you by, there’s still time for you to join us today (see map link above) before the events start at a location near you.


My question was about campaigning.

Then it seems you didn’t read or don’t share the view I expressed to albill, that campaigning for a candidate who doesn’t go on to win can nonetheless do some good. This may include laying groundwork and developing strategies, both in politics and elsewhere.

Good, since I asked whether you would help build them. But voting for Clinton, should she win the nomination, and ignoring progressive third parties, doesn’t strike me as constructive in any positive sense.

My hypothetical was conditional on that strategy being unrealistic. Returning to it, if Sanders should lose the nomination to Clinton, eliminating the more progressive Democrat, their party would likely interpret this as freedom to move further to the right, whereas greater competition from Greens, Justice, etc., may check that tendency. You could help them in this, even while spreading a more progressive vision and sharing the strategies you used in grassroots groups.

If Clinton is nominated, you may vote for the lesser evil, while others vote for the greater good.

[quote=“strophariad, post:231, topic:59394”]
My question was about campaigning.
[/quote]I was referring to both. I apologize if I wasn’t clear.

[quote=“strophariad, post:231, topic:59394”]
campaigning for a candidate who doesn’t go on to win can nonetheless do some good.
[/quote]Not my style. I don’t support protest candidates. I will turn my support towards Clinton if Sanders loses to her. There’s no way in hell I’ll sit idly by while Republicans destroy this planet with yet another administration. I don’t like Clinton, however the Republican alternatives are unthinkable.

If someone wants to run to win and they are viable, I’ll work with them. I would send her some money if she didn’t serve as a potential spoiler, but she’s regrettably already doing so. As I said, if Bernie did the same, he’d be getting little (if any) support from me right now.

I want to make progressive third parties a viable alternative down the road, not just a perpetual platform for protest candidates. I’m in this for the long-game.

[quote=“strophariad, post:231, topic:59394”]
If Clinton is nominated, you may vote for the lesser evil, while others vote for the greater good.
[/quote]Your vote in the real world may be for a good-intentioned spoiler that will help to usher in vastly greater evil (depending upon which state you’re in, of course). I’ll have no part in perpetuating vastly greater evil (that also translates to vastly more death and destruction) indirectly or otherwise.

Again, I hope you take a closer look at the concept of the perfect being the enemy of the good & more on this.

If you want to discuss this concept further, I’m going to refer you to here as we’re getting off-topic:

Link to my thread post <-- Within that thread I’ve said all I’m ever going to say on that topic.


Best of luck to you from abroad.