The Clinton Victory Thread

[proudfootz]

It's not Nader's fault or his supporters fault Gore couldn't carry sufficient states to win

Yes it is.
In Florida alone, if Nader's votes had been Gore votes Bush wouldn't have been President. Nobody knows what would have happened. But it would more likely have included sustainable development and foreign policy than the invasions and recession that we got.
Nader and his supporters voted for that by voting against Gore.

Same as the Sanders supporters will vote for whatever the GOP candidate does if they don't vote Democrat in November. Simple as tkhat. I think most of them are smart enough to see that.

So it stands to reason if Clinton doesn't do what it takes to win these votes, no one else will be to blame.

Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

But maybe not. And Sanders supporters, the young and the leftist, are notoriously low turn out voters anyway. That's why the Washington DC power brokers don't take them too seriously. They'll Facebook, but not vote.
Votes are what matters.
Tom

So now the claim is these people won't vote anyway, so why court them?

FFS pick one - either they are crucial or they are insignificant.

[proudfootz]

Yup, the Clinton supporters feel the Bernie supporters are stupid for wanting democracy, and not a corrupt corporate shill. The Bernie supporters feel the Clinton supporters are stupid for not seeing what a mismatch Clinton is against Trump. It seems to me the establishment wants to hold on to its power, even if it costs them the election. The Democratic Party is in crisis, just not so obviously so as the republicans.

The scare tactics work both ways.

Voting for Clinton is like voting for Trump, because Sanders polls much better among likely voters.

So if Trump is our next President, blame Clinton and her supporters.

[Saim]

I don't understand this bitterness among Sanders supporters.

What Western country has a leftist head of government? There are leftist parties represented in many parliaments, sure, but they've only ever governed in coalition with ex-socialist Third Way types equivalent to New Labor in the UK. The political ground on economic issues has been moving steadily to the Right in all these societies. Just repeating how "electable" Sanders is is with respect to Clinton doesn't change the facts on the ground, and that is that there is probably no other Western society where it is worse to run on a "socialist" (although it's really more social-democratic) platform, unless you include countries like Poland and Hungary in a broader "West".

If you really want to effect change holding the presidency is not the way to do it. American Progressives need to help build a grassroots campaign for electoral reform, and Sanders can still stay as an ideological leader who raises consciousness on the dismanteling of the welfare state. Not all is lost in a Clinton presidency, because the fight for economic equality and social justice is a long-term one.

In Australia I don't freak out every time the Greens only get a couple of Senate seats, so I don't see why the rest of you should get so worried about a right-wing Democrat government in the US. All of us on the Left have to come to terms with the fact that our ideological bent is a minority throughout the West and that we need to keep working if we want to stop extreme capitalism, it's not going to come from one set of elections in the US.

[Teague]

The main question is whether she can get rid of the obstructionists in Congress. I think she can. Whether the Sanders supporters will stay home and glower is the big question. They might vote for the GOP by staying home on election day.

Frankly, I agree with Byron. Sanders' supporters are mostly a bunch of whiners who will vote for the GOP if they don't get their way. They'll stay home and play video games, and let the GOP win.
I don't think Billary is banking on them. I wouldn't.
Tom

What on earth makes you think Clinton can get rid of an obstructionist congress? Sanders has a better chance I would imagine considering he's apparently quite good at making compromises, despite what the Washington post want to say about him (if you read that piece which is in the Sanders thread I believe).

Sanders, like Trump supporters are sick of American leadership and politics. They pretty much want a change and can see that "trickle down economics" is bullshit and nothing's changed in 30 years - oh it has, changed for the worse it would seem.

Look at the shit storm the ACA brought about when people wanted to make sure other people got some health care.

If you're not sick of the system and your voting Clinton, you're voting for corruption and oligarchy and should be ashamed of yourselves. You can belittle Sander's supports all you like, at least they can recognise a decent politician when they see one.

[Willie71]

Interview between Thom Hartman and Thomas a Frank. I just ordered this book. This is a discussion of the shift of the Democratic Party from the party of the people to the party of the professional class. Quite interesting. There are a series of at least three videos between Thom and Thomas. Not sure if they are all posted yet. There might be four or five. There has been a loss of democratic support since the shift. Continuing to go in the same way, ignoring the new generations coming of voting age will be disastrous.

[Willie71]

WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) - Democratic support for Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential campaign is softening amid controversy over her use of personal email when secretary of state, but most Democrats are for now sticking by their party’s presumed candidate.

Support for Clinton’s candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. Support from Democrats likely to vote in the party nominating contests has dropped only slightly less, to a low in the mid-50s over the same period.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/1 ... 00590.html


The trend is not in the right direction.

[proudfootz]

I don't understand this bitterness among Sanders supporters.

What bitterness?

It sounds like the Clinton supporters who are freaking out.

What Western country has a leftist head of government? There are leftist parties represented in many parliaments, sure, but they've only ever governed in coalition with ex-socialist Third Way types equivalent to New Labor in the UK. The political ground on economic issues has been moving steadily to the Right in all these societies. Just repeating how "electable" Sanders is is with respect to Clinton doesn't change the facts on the ground, and that is that there is probably no other Western society where it is worse to run on a "socialist" (although it's really more social-democratic) platform, unless you include countries like Poland and Hungary in a broader "West".

From my perspective the USA is far enough to the 'right' as it is. There needs to be a correction to bring us into line with modern nations vis a vis health, education, housing, etc.

If you really want to effect change holding the presidency is not the way to do it. American Progressives need to help build a grassroots campaign for electoral reform, and Sanders can still stay as an ideological leader who raises consciousness on the dismanteling of the welfare state. Not all is lost in a Clinton presidency, because the fight for economic equality and social justice is a long-term one.

I do agree there needs to be socially conscious public servants at all levels, from the county sheriff to the city council, from the mayor to the governor.

In Australia I don't freak out every time the Greens only get a couple of Senate seats, so I don't see why the rest of you should get so worried about a right-wing Democrat government in the US. All of us on the Left have to come to terms with the fact that our ideological bent is a minority throughout the West and that we need to keep working if we want to stop extreme capitalism, it's not going to come from one set of elections in the US.

In the USA matters are already pretty extreme, and some don't want to see things get any worse.

[OlivierK]

WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) - Democratic support for Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential campaign is softening amid controversy over her use of personal email when secretary of state, but most Democrats are for now sticking by their party’s presumed candidate.

Support for Clinton’s candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. Support from Democrats likely to vote in the party nominating contests has dropped only slightly less, to a low in the mid-50s over the same period.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/1 ... 00590.html


The trend is not in the right direction.

That's from 2015.

[Willie71]

WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) - Democratic support for Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential campaign is softening amid controversy over her use of personal email when secretary of state, but most Democrats are for now sticking by their party’s presumed candidate.

Support for Clinton’s candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. Support from Democrats likely to vote in the party nominating contests has dropped only slightly less, to a low in the mid-50s over the same period.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/1 ... 00590.html


The trend is not in the right direction.

That's from 2015.

Damn, how did I miss that?

[Nicko]

The USA electorate is not as socialist as Sanders is. Whether they should be or not isn't the question. We aren't.

Actually, you are.

The problem is that the Democratic Party isn't as socialist as Sanders.

[proudfootz]

The USA electorate is not as socialist as Sanders is. Whether they should be or not isn't the question. We aren't.

Actually, you are.

The problem is that the Democratic Party isn't as socialist as Sanders.

Sadly, our Dear Leaders don't seem to have our best interests at heart.

[Willie71]

Interesting commentary by Thom Hartman. 90% of the people aren't represented by the government.

[Saim]

I don't understand this bitterness among Sanders supporters.

What bitterness?

The sense I get from some supporters is that if they don't get the nomination it's all over and Americans are "too stupid" to elect a decent government.

[Scot Dutchy]

I don't understand this bitterness among Sanders supporters.

What bitterness?

The sense I get from some supporters is that if they don't get the nomination it's all over and Americans are "too stupid" to elect a decent government.

It is a superiority thing. Sort of inverse dumbness.

[proudfootz]

I don't understand this bitterness among Sanders supporters.

What bitterness?

The sense I get from some supporters is that if they don't get the nomination it's all over and Americans are "too stupid" to elect a decent government.

Well, it remains to bee seen whether we can elect a decent government.

The sense I get is that if Clinton fails to get elected everyone but her will be to blame.

[Arnold Layne]

I don't understand this bitterness among Sanders supporters.

What Western country has a leftist head of government? There are leftist parties represented in many parliaments, sure, but they've only ever governed in coalition with ex-socialist Third Way types equivalent to New Labor in the UK. The political ground on economic issues has been moving steadily to the Right in all these societies. Just repeating how "electable" Sanders is is with respect to Clinton doesn't change the facts on the ground, and that is that there is probably no other Western society where it is worse to run on a "socialist" (although it's really more social-democratic) platform, unless you include countries like Poland and Hungary in a broader "West".

If you really want to effect change holding the presidency is not the way to do it. American Progressives need to help build a grassroots campaign for electoral reform, and Sanders can still stay as an ideological leader who raises consciousness on the dismanteling of the welfare state. Not all is lost in a Clinton presidency, because the fight for economic equality and social justice is a long-term one.

In Australia I don't freak out every time the Greens only get a couple of Senate seats, so I don't see why the rest of you should get so worried about a right-wing Democrat government in the US. All of us on the Left have to come to terms with the fact that our ideological bent is a minority throughout the West and that we need to keep working if we want to stop extreme capitalism, it's not going to come from one set of elections in the US.

France.

[Columbus]

So it stands to reason if Clinton doesn't do what it takes to win these votes, no one else will be to blame.

Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

The same applies to Sanders. If he doesn't do what it takes to win the votes, no one else will be to blame. It stands to reason.
Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

The political reality is that Clinton is winning the votes. Not Trump, Sanders or Cruz.
Especially not the emergency candidate that the GOP honchos hope will rescue the party.
Tom

[Willie71]

So it stands to reason if Clinton doesn't do what it takes to win these votes, no one else will be to blame.

Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

The same applies to Sanders. If he doesn't do what it takes to win the votes, no one else will be to blame. It stands to reason.
Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

The political reality is that Clinton is winning the votes. Not Trump, Sanders or Cruz.
Especially not the emergency candidate that the GOP honchos hope will rescue the party.
Tom

While I generally agree with you, a free and fair election requires a certain amount of ethical behaviour. Sanders is running an ethical campaign, and it's costing him, as Hillary and the DNC have a different threshold. It'll likely cost him the nomination. On the other hand, Trump or Cruz have even lower standards, or possibly none at all.

Sanders could do better by smearing Clinton, but he would lose his mist desireable trait, and it would cost him respect and credibility in the long run.

[Columbus]

Let me repeat something. I will not vote for Clinton.
I've never voted in a primary. My state is small, Republican, and the primaries are late. So it has never been worth the time to vote in the political party nomination nonsense.
This year is different. I intend to vote for Trump in May, because I like the damage he doing to the TeaParty wing of the GOP. In November I will vote straight ticket Democrat. I don't care who their presidential candidate is, I will vote and it will be for them.

Unless I am confident that the dems will win, in which case I will vote Green. Because I not only like them better, I want the USA to have more than what we have in the way of political parties. But I will not risk a Trump or Cruz presidency by not voting.
Tom

[Columbus]

Sanders could do better by smearing Clinton.

No, Sanders will ruin any chance of seeing his progressive plans make headway by smearing Clinton.

Either she loses to the GOP, like Trump or Cruz, in which case he goes back to being an ineffectual "voice crying out in the wilderness". Or he loses his clout with the Democratic party, which he doesn't have much of anyway since he just became a Democrat a few months ago.
Sanders will be explaining to his supporters why they need to vote for Hillary by the end of the convention. So he is not going to smear Hillary in the meantime.
The best chance Sanders supporters have of pushing their agenda is to support Sanders until he loses the nomination, then support the Democrats.

As opposed to the Republican candidates who are all smearing each other.
Tom