Posted on 12/02/2015 9:13:43 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Bernie supporters could blow this election: Why refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton will only make everything worse
The political left has been tearing itself up of late with a rousing game of "Who Wants to Be the Most Liberal Liberal Ever To Liberal," much in the same way it seems to each and every election cycle. The current battle, between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, would be much more entertaining if the arguments for and against both campaigns weren't variations on the same tired leftier-than-thou rhetoric and blind loyalty that were worn out even before Ralph Nader threw his rumpled corduroy blazer over his shoulder and slunk off into the humid Florida night.
I'll get to some of those arguments in a minute, but first I'm going to pull on my old-man pants, hike the waist up to my armpits, shake my fist at some clouds, and share a couple of the strongest memories I have of the months leading up to the 2000 election, when I was a 26-year-old, semi-politically-aware liberalish Gen-X voter.
I recall a debate that year about whether true liberals should vote for Nader because, in his formulation, there was not a dime's worth of difference between the two major-party candidates, Al Gore and George W. Bush. I recall email blasts from at least one acquaintance in a toss-up state trying to interest his friends in states that were safely for Gore in a voting trade of sorts, whereby one of us would cast our vote for Nader; in return, our friend would cast his vote for Gore. The thinking was that this would preserve a Democratic victory in both states while also registering liberal protests at the centrist drift of the party.
I recall spending the night before the election drinking in a P.F. Chang's in Los Angeles with a group of friends, one of whom had brought along a reporter from the L.A. Daily News who planned on casting her vote the next day for Nader. There had been some vague concern over polls showing the race for California's 54 electoral votes might be close, but she assured us all that this was not the case. California was safely in Gore's column, so liberals might as well cast that protest vote.
I recall thinking that this was a dumb idea, mostly because I followed the campaign closely enough to believe that the "not a dime's worth of difference" formulation was utter garbage. But there was a nationwide movement of voters like my acquaintance and that reporter pushing the deal.
I recall spending election night lying on the floor of my room, nursing an enormous hangover, screaming at my TV when the networks started calling Florida for Bush. It seemed that some liberals in Florida had cast those protest votes in the closest of close races because they just couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for Gore. So we got Florida and the recounts and the Brooks Brothers riot and generally a display of American democracy in action that was more embarrassing than anything in the previous 30 years, which up until then you wouldn't have thought possible.
Now, 15 years later, does anyone want to argue that there was not a dime's worth of difference between the potential Gore administration and the clusterfuckery that we got with Bush? Because if you do, my family owns some swampland - er, I mean highly prized and valuable real estate in Florida - that we would be happy to sell you.
"But Hillary's personality!" I can hear you screaming. So, tell pollsters you'd rather have a beer with whomever the Republicans nominate. Just don't vote that way. It's a stupid question anyway, though that didn't stop someone from asking it in 2000 and in every election since. More people answered Bush in 2000. I shudder to think it might have earned him some votes.
"Who cares about the Supreme Court? It's not an issue!" As Scott Lemieux never tires of pointing out, the justices a president might nominate very well should enter into your calculations. Just ask anyone affected by the votes and decisions of Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts. That would include, off the top of my head and in no particular order: voters in Southern states who lost the franchise thanks to Roberts helping to gut the Voting Rights Act; poor people shut out of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion because Roberts basically invented a new judicial doctrine to justify making it optional for states; and women who will lose their access to safe and legal abortion if the court overturns Roe v. Wade, which could happen in the next term.
It's no problem, those decisions only directly and negatively impacted many millions of your fellow citizens. By all means, let's take a chance on whomever SCOTUS justices Ted Cruz sees fit to nominate. The fact of the matter is that there are currently four judges over the age of 77, so actuarial probability suggests the next president will get to appoint a couple of new ones.
"Bernie Sanders will fight for more progressive issues!" Yes he will. But he will also work under the same constraints with Congress that any Democratic president would be - namely, that the GOP has a lock on the House and even a Republican minority can gum up the Senate - as President Obama can tell you. We're electing someone to head a co-equal branch of government, not a banana-republic dictator who can cow his legislature into doing whatever he wants.
If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she will likely work to pass some progressive bills and kick some others to the curb. Bernie Sanders will do the same if he wins, even if his worldview is consistently more liberal. Which means that broadly speaking, no matter which of them wins you will get some progressive legislation that you want, and not get some other legislation that you also want. A president only has but so much political capital to spend in the horse-trading that accompanies every piece of legislation that rolls through Congress. As Denis Leary once said, "Life sucks. Buy a [flippin'] helmet."
The Democratic Party may be moving back to the left, but don't be fooled into thinking the prominence of Sanders or Elizabeth Warren signals an imminent major shift. The party is still a long way from consolidating around the type of liberalism that those figures represents. (If it wasn't, Hillary wouldn't be crushing Sanders by better than 20 points among Democratic voters in national polls.) And while the presidential election is certainly important, Sanders getting into the Oval Office is not a panacea for right-wing governance. There is the House and Senate, to say nothing of all the state legislatures and governor's mansions where Republicans are enjoying the largest electoral successes they have had at just about any time in history. There is a limit to how many liberals in down-ballot races a Democratic presidential candidate will drag along with him or her in 2016. Hell, first you have to find some liberals to run in many places.
The appeal of a protest vote is understandable. And in the primaries, that's fine. I don't even like to use the term "protest vote" in those circumstances. You're voting for the candidate you think will be better. If your guy loses, though, you don't get to hide behind ridiculous protestations about Hillary Clinton being a Republican to justify writing him in or staying home in the general. Particularly if it puts an extreme conservative like Cruz or Marco Rubio or, heaven forbid, Donald Trump in the White House.
Some in my generation made a mistake in 2000 because they were unrealistic. Don't make our mistake in 2016. There is too much at stake.
Establishment Lib Dems vs the SJWs.
The kicker is that the SJWs are so deranged and power mad, that they will destroy the Democrats if Sanders isn’t the pick.
They want socialism and they want it now. No more hiding it.
Yesterday, last Bernie supporter was present in Trump rally in NH.
....well it's a plan... :-)
Bernie will stand up at the DNC Convention and implore his followers to Vote for The Butcher of Benghazi. Then Obama will get up there and make some veiled Threats and that will be that.
The Lemmings will follow whoever promises them Free College, elimination of Student Loan Debt and a Monthly Stipend to pay their Cell Phone Bills.
Romney wouldn't have beaten Obama. Your and my conscience are clear ... Romney was a bad choice. Maybe the GOP will have someone worthy of a vote this year ... and that is not ANY of the GOP mainliners.
There’s many Dems that won’t do a protest vote - they just won’t vote...Hillary is only popular with the far left, not with ANYBODY else.
Bernie’s supporters are not casting protest votes. They truly believe that the time for Socialism has arrived.
May that desperation grow in numbers to depress and immobilize them from voting and coming out of their homes in 2017.
Oh c’mon, you aren’t Really going to vote for Hillary are you? How will you be able to live with yourself? Remember, the issue of Hillary getting elected isn’t the issue, the issue is the Revolution. You remember all the stuff your Professor, Marx and Engels said? You Have to be true to yourself. Now person up and write in Bernie! There, I knew you could. Forward!
The Lemmings will follow whoever promises them Free College, elimination of Student Loan Debt and a Monthly Stipend to pay their Cell Phone Bills for their free new I phone 6.
So, which Hipanic female lefty might Soros put in place in early 2016?
Out of the blue, like zerO...
Did you ever hear about any conservative voting precincts with 110% turnout? It just doesn't happen.
Yup, the Left faces a loss if, not liking Hillary, they opt for a 3rd party hardcore Leftist or stay home. She’s far from their preferred choice, but if she’s the one on the final ballot they’d better vote for her or will assure a Trump victory.
In a way, the same rhetoric applies to the Right. Like many, I prefer Cruz over Trump, and will vote accordingly in the primary - but come November, I expect Trump will be on the ticket and will vote for him even if GA seems “solid red” and (thru some fluke) Cruz or some such go 3rd party. (Of course I’d vote Cruz if somehow he overtakes Trump in the primary.)
Winning matters. Better to have your #2 choice win than tenaciously hold to your #1 and end up with Cthulhu’s representative as POTUS. Getting a little less than you want is way better than getting the anathema.
I’m a Dave myself, no Kids but old enough to be a Grandpa and I can’t afford a new iPhone.
I’d better Register as a DemoncRat so I can Vote for Bernie.
Heck, maybe I’ll go finish College on the Taxpayer’s dime. I quit College 45 Years ago because I got a Full Time Job. LOL
Funny, Trump as a Samsung Galaxy not an iPhone, and he can afford anything he wants. Hmmmmmmmm
Name one, and document the circumstances. Can't? Figures, but expected of a Salon-ista.
Asking Bernie’s people to vote for Hillary is like asking Bush people to vote for Trump. It ain’t gonna happen.
I never understand the appeal of being like the Europeans, if they love what they do for government, then let them go live somewhere in there, not here.
Do they truly believe that Dear Bernie will forego the Hitler-Stalin-Mao model of mass murder of dissidents? Oh, that's right; they thing it won't happen to THEM, just to the Patriots. Useful idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.