I think there are plenty of Sanders supporters who will stay home rather than vote for Clinton, but there are probably also plenty who say they will do that now, and who will instead go vote for Clinton when the time comes. To use the analogy from the article - it’s one thing to say you’ll gnaw off your leg to escape that trap, it’s another thing to have the will to do it, and for rational compassionate educated people, voting Trump might be too painful.
But there are lots of people out there who are 18-24 who have never voted before who are feeling the Bern. They don’t hate Clinton (or at least they didn’t). They weren’t even aware of politics when Bill was in the white house. But Sanders is convincing them that it’s important for them to go out and vote. Just like many people who say they won’t vote Clinton will actually do it, many young people who say they are energized to vote won’t find themselves that energized when election day comes. But some will. Clinton called these people stupid kids and told them needed to drop their fantasy of voting for the candidate they like best and embrace the reality of voting for the least popular candidate because of her existing political capital. Maybe if she hadn’t done that the proportion that show up would be higher.
“democratic socialist” is a generic description, and doesn’t indicate membership in any particular party. I’m pretty sure that Sanders and the DSA [not DLC] have both denied he’s ever been a member.
I can certainly see some of what you are saying, but it seems to me that you’re kind of whitewashing the Sanders campaign. The atmosphere around the campaign–blogs, Facebook pages, etc–has been quite hateful since March 15th or so. Even in Michigan, what I heard from the Sanders camp was largely anti-Clinton. Bernie or Bust has been growing, not diminishing as the campaign has worn on. Even if you pretend all that has nothing to do with the campaign itself (I personally very much doubt it, but that’s me), defusing that process of tearing down the front runner would be a higher priority for someone who was really concerned to beat Trump in November.
Particular because what slim chance Sanders may have to win is not dependent on his continuing to run hard. At all. It is plausible that Clinton might lose this primary race. It is impossible that Sanders will win it.
Again, I’m aware of the nit, it’s been picked. It’s not relevant to whether or not Sanders should run as a democrat. If you’ve got more explanation then you could actually clarify rather than saying ‘read the thread’. That’s why they invented conversations.
Neither answer changes any outcomes. Nobody here thinks Sanders should run as a third party candidate unless you do.
If you’re aware of an outcome it impacts, please say so.
How can you how relevant when you clearly don’t know what “it” or “nit” even is? Here’s a hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with Sanders running as a third party candidate.
You are commenting on an exchange between two other posters knowing precisely nothing about that exchange and now you want me to fill you in on the background. Puppy.
So in the thread about why Sanders is still campaigning, your answer is that it’s not about Sanders continuing to campaign? You’re complaining that somebody’s responding on-topic to your off-topic thread? Narwhal. (is that how this works? Just pick an animal?)
I totally agree that Bernie or Bust has been growing rather than diminishing. I also think that if Clinton was running a competent campaign it would be diminishing rather than growing. I’ve seen plenty of people on these forums change from “Obviously I’ll vote Clinton if Sanders doesn’t win” to “You know what, fuck it. We can have Trump for all I care, I can’t stomach Clinton.” That’s not because of what Sanders has done, that’s because of what Clinton has done. Some Sanders supporters have been pretty awful and some Clinton supporters have been pretty awful.
But when Clinton suggested she thought Sanders might not be qualified to be president, and when she said she was sorry for young people who believed Sanders, and when she said she was “sick of the Sander campaign lying about her” over something a Greenpeace activist said (not something Sanders said), she totally lost me. I can’t vote for her anyway, but somehow in the middle of the campaign I myself moved from “Obviously Clinton” to “Fuck it, let it burn.” And it was watching Clinton, not listening to Sanders that did that to me.
Clinton could have handled the whole thing differently, and she could still be turning it around. Nevada was ridiculous. The acrimony over a few delegates in a race that is essentially already decided was crazy and didn’t benefit either camp or the race for the presidency. If Clinton wants to be president then she needs to stop shit like that from happening, not try to blame someone else for it.
If Clinton really thinks that Sanders and his supporters are acting like little kids, then she doesn’t know shit about how to deal with little kids.
It’s the same patronizing garbage that came from Tony Blair when he was asked about Corbyn’s success. And it’s working about as well (but with only one establishment candidate, she’ll win, the Labour party had three competing for the same space).
I think Clinton would perhaps seem better if Sanders wasn’t there, because his presence just make all the disappointing things about her more obvious.
I’m wondering if the lack of Democratic debates is helping/hindering her. I don’t follow her campaign at all, so I haven’t heard anything from her at all for months. I wonder if many of the Sanders supporters she will need to win over in Nov are in a similar boat?
@oranpkelley and @William_Holz, I don’t think your conversation is progressing in the slightest, and it’s edging into personal attack territory. I don’t mean to hurt anyones feelings, but maybe a break is in order before someone says something they regret.
