Bernie Sanders is officially a phenomenon, and his near-tie in the Iowa caucuses shows that his organization is for real. Congratulations to his supporters.
Can Bernie win in November? I think David Roberts makes a lot of sense in saying that Sanders has faced absolutely nothing like the kind of @#%$storm that he’s going to get from the GOP, the Kochtopus, and the like. And you know, there’s the socialist thing: polls say that some 50% of voters will never vote for a socialist. Good luck explaining that “democratic socialist” thing to people — that’s just not gonna take with a lot of folks. Roberts:
When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?
But c’mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election..
I have also found that these concerns meet with a certain brittle response from Bernie supporters, as if questioning his electability is the same as saying that his ideas are bad or not important. I certainly don’t mean to do that. Sanders is a substantial person, a real public servant, a real legislator, and one who has earned the trust of his constituents again and again. His notion of a “political revolution” in an era of oligarchy strikes as spot on — the very way we talk about the possibilities of politics is warped by the power of money and special interests.
But we have to win in November. Have to. Why? Two main reasons for me:
- Supreme Court: Campaign finance/Overturning Citizens United; voting and civil rights laws; and respecting constitutional and lawful regulations.
- Climate: To continue the Obama administration’s path on curbing greenhouse gas emissions through EPA authority, and continuing the remarkable string of international agreements on climate.
I’m sure you can think of more, but the fate of human civilization seems pretty important; and the reclaiming of our politics from oligarchy begins with reversing Citizens United. (The initial name of that organization was Citizens United was promoting an anti-Hillary film. You might say this is personal for her.) I think Hillary is reasonably solid on those positions.
I am not here to defend the perfection of Hillary Clinton. But she is fairly resilient, if not politically agile. She is able to inspire loyalty, even tears, among her supporters. She has a ton of detractors, who among the Bernie believers have become increasingly strident. But I’ve always thought that when speaking for herself, she comes off pretty well. She is running a general-election primary, as it were — based on the idea that she can win.
Bottom line is that I think she’d be a decent president. And that Bernie wouldn’t be able to deliver on his best ideas: Single-payer, free college, etc. Those are generational challenges, and they will probably only happen when they’re somehow not controversial anymore. But right now he’s going to get killed on taxes and spending. Most folks aren’t going to look at his (very sensible) tax bracket plan and think hey, that works out for me. Many will hear about tax hikes and decide that “they” can’t afford it.
Bernie is tapping into a deep and real part of our political Zeitgeist: The idea that we’re being cheated out of prosperity and protections that we should be enjoying: Higher wages, equality under the law, protection from financial predation, health care security (vs. nominal “insurance”) — this is all very salient in the public’s mind. Hillary would ignore this at her peril. (In his way, Trump is also tapping into a vein of dissatisfaction, that people aren’t getting ahead in this economy — which he dovetails thematically with anti-immigrant xenophobia and racism, a narrative of humiliation.)
In a lot of ways, I’d prefer Bernie, but I also think it’s incumbent upon one to assess the situation strategically. I’m very glad he’s in the race, and that his supporters fight on. But I may not vote for him.
(edited for accuracy)
ryepower12 says
When he ran for Senate, he had more money thrown at him with vicious, nasty attacks than anyone in Vermont history (by far and wide).
He was outspent by orders of magnitudes, but clearly and effectively dealt with all the negative attacks.
He and his longtime campaign advisers, like Tad Devine, are extremely savvy and know exactly what’s coming. Bernie’s always proven that he’s ready for those attacks, and responds in positive ways that push the campaign forward.
Negative ads have never been less effective than in these past couple campaigns. If Wall St launches missiles, it will only play right into Bernie’s playbook.
Bernie has the organization, passion, campaign savvy and can raise the kind of money to compete. He performs better than Hillary against all the Republicans.
And Hillary? She’s a deeply hated figure among Republican circles, with 100% name recognition. Her margin of victory will be small, at best. Republicans have been salivating to run against her for years now.
The only thing most people know about Bernie is he’s a ‘socialist from Vermont.’ Despite that, or because of it, he has the highest favorability ratings in the campaign (in either parties). His favorability ratings could be cut in half and he’d still be about as popular in general election crowds as Hillary is today.
People know he’s honest and has integrity, and will tirelessly fight for them, and none of that is going to change — because he’s been so consistent and on message for his entire career.
And let’s talk about electability for a second.
Bernie Sanders has won a dozen elections, up against tens of millions of dollars and the entire establishment. He’s a proven winner.
What about the last few people our party has nominated because they’re “electable?”
The Democratic Party nominated John Kerry because he was “more electable.” He wasn’t.
Locally, we nominated Martha Coakley — twice — in great part because she was the better known figure in the party, who people thought was “more electable.”
She wasn’t.
We nominated a black guy, with the middle name Hussian, who most in the establishment opposed early on. He spoke to the passions of the people and ran an overwhelming positive campaign, creating record turnouts… and won two national elections.
When we nominate candidates with a spine, who tirelessly speak for struggling families and against Wall St abuse — like Elizabeth Warren — we’ve won. When we nominate people who speak to our greater aspirations and try to bring new voters to the table, we win.
When we don’t do those things, we lose.
So, let’s tell the pundit class and Wall St to take a hike. We don’t have to compromise our ideals this year, a year in which our opponent will be the racist Donald Trump or nutty (and deeply hated by his own party) Ted Cruz.
We can win by nominating someone who represents what we want, and who will beat back and resist Wall St’s corrupting influence at every turn.
We can nominate someone who will take us back to the days of FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Carter, and give our country a huge alternative to the neoliberalism that’s been at the source of destroying tens of millions of lives.
And we can nominate someone who can rebuild our party — a party that’s lost 20% of its national membership in 8 years — by embracing millenials and the kinds of policies that can reforge the coalition that FDR created and sustained our party until Ronald Reagan used the dog whistle to divide it.
Hillary Clinton has all the same downsides in this election as Bernie Sanders, but not nearly as many of the upsides. We don’t have to be scared of our shadow anymore. The past 10 years has showed us that when we nominate candidates who vigorously defend and fight for our values, we win. The record is much more mixed when we don’t, or when we nominate candidates who stick their fingers up in the air and try to see where the wind’s blowing.
I like Hillary. I’ll vote for her in the general, if I must. But we need not compromise on our principals in this election, and we should vote knowing that recent history has shown it’s our bolder candidates who win, not our candidates who compromise before the fight even begins, or who rely on the friendship of Wall St.
Charley on the MTA says
Bernie’s popularity and success in Vermont is remarkable, a great story, a credit to the man. But VT has 626,000 people in the whole state. Bernie’s probably met half of them. Koch Bros are spending $900 million. At least you have to admit it’s a whole new level of kitchen sink.
hoyapaul says
Whether or not this is true as an objective matter, we’re talking about Vermont here — literally the most liberal state in the entire country.
Even savvy candidates and advisors can’t see everything that is coming. Case in point: Tad Devine was a senior advisor on Kerry’s campaign. They didn’t see the Swift Boat attacks coming, or respond to them effectively.
Assuming that you are refering to (some) of the head-to-head polling out there, note that general election polling this far out of the election — and in the midst of competitive primaries — is notoriously inaccurate.
That Kerry and Coakley lost in the general election are not, of course, proof that they were less electable compared to their Democratic primary opponents. Their opponents may have gone on to lose by more.
Disagreed. First, Clinton has had just about everything thrown at her from every part of the political spectrum on the national stage for over two decades. Yet she maintains superb approval ratings within her own party, which is arguably the most important factor in the current age of polarized politics. Second, I think you are underestimating her inspirational appeal as the one to potentially break the presidential glass ceiling. Third, Sanders has not demonstrated much appeal to voters of color, who of course are a crucial part of the multi-racial Democratic coalition. Does this mean that African-American and Latino voters will turn out in lower numbers for Sanders as compared to Clinton? I don’t know. But it’s a downside risk that doesn’t exist with Clinton.
Of course, I will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee. I think he could win, especially if the Republicans nominate Trump or Cruz. But I share Charley’s skepticism that he would do better than Clinton in the general election.
spence says
Bernie has never faced the full brunt of the national repub smear machine.
His political skills have definitely been underrated, but he is essentially a rookie on presidential level- which is different than all the other levels.
I like what Bernie is doing a lot, but whether he can withstand what would come if he were the nominee is a very legit question…and not just because of the “socialism” thing.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
Hillary has big personal negatives herself. Her unfavorable is 52%.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
If the argument you are making is electability, (as opposed to talking about the issues that matter), then how is Hillary going to deal with that?
Her electorate tends older – over 45 – and more disciplined. These voters will show up to vote Bernie if he’s elected. Not the same can be said about Bernie’s supporters, which tend young, and tend to be excited by him, not by Hillary. There’s a huge chasm in the Dem party – and I don’t think some of us talking heads are fully recognizing the implications.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-great-democratic-age-gap/459570/
spence says
Hillary has issues too…not the least of which is a severe defensiveness, which probably comes from her decades in the trenches vs. national repubs. Bernie has not been battle-tested at the highest level like Hillary has, it’s just a fact. Hillary is flawed, but known. Bernie is unknown.
I’m not saying don’t vote for Bernie, I may myself (or may not). Just making a point about the general. Don’t make assumptions.
And winning the election is an issue that matters, a very important one.
Mark L. Bail says
Hilary’s unfavorables aren’t going lower. Bernie is not well-known enough among the general electorate to have huge negatives. He has plenty of weak spots for the GOP to exploit: New Yorker, Jewish, Northern liberal, socialist, age.
There is a refreshing gap between old and young Democratic voters. If Bernie isn’t nominated, he’ll probably get some control of the Democratic establishment, more so than Howard Dean, I think. That would be an important consolation prize.
SomervilleTom says
I agree that electability matters, that’s not my issue with it. My issue with it is that I don’t think it helps us choose the better President.
One of the candidates from each party will be nominated. As horrifying as it is to me, several of the currently-leading GOP candidates are electable (that’s the horrifying part). Even if I am provided objective, incontrovertible evidence that — choosing one arbitrarily — Mark Rubio is the most electable GOP candidate, I don’t think that means that he would be a better president than either of the other two.
Even if we were somehow provided similarly object incontrovertible evidence that — choosing one arbitrarily — Bernie Sanders is more electable than Hillary Clinton, I don’t think that means that he would be a better president.
Each Democratic candidate has strengths and weaknesses. Each will face a full-bore no-holds-barred onslaught from the right wing if nominated. Each will need a strong, smart, and well-executed campaign in order to win.
I helped elect a relatively unknown “outsider” with fewer “negatives” than Ms. Clinton in 2008. Barack Obama was very electable, and he won. We will never know what would have happened if Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2008.
In terms of effectiveness, I see no indication that Bernie Sanders is likely to be more effective than Barack Obama if elected. I see many indications that Ms. Clinton is likely to be more effective than Mr. Sanders if elected.
I think that a President Hillary Clinton, with Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren continuing to energize and mobilize progressives, is likely to gain more positive ground on those issues where gains are possible and likely to lose less ground on those issues where losses are likely than a President Bernie Sanders, with Ms. Clinton and Ms. Warren in the wings.
I just don’t see “electability” as being nearly as important as effectiveness when it comes to selecting a candidate during primary season.
centralmassdad says
We should apply a suitable discount to the effectiveness thing, because the Clintons certainly have a history of handing big weapons to their enemies. See, email. That said, I don’t think the analysis changes for me.
Put another way, the views of these candidates on single payer is not particularly relevant to me, because I know that this is not happening during the next administration.
SomervilleTom says
I uprated your comment because I agree with your second paragraph.
I disagree with the premise and assumptions of your first paragraph. I’m not sure that “handing … to their enemies” is accurate. I think it is more accurate to discuss the eagerness of the GOP to dig up or misconstrue ANYTHING to use against any Democrat who holds office.
We don’t know what “big weapons” Mr. Sanders has “handed” to the other side. I would argue that the GOP, in fact, has a long history of misusing the apparatus of government to acquire as much material as possible to be refined into “weapons” and subsequently used.
We don’t know what they’ve got on Mr. Sanders, because they’ve had no need to use it it. We know that they got as much mileage as they could from the “issue” of Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications for the office and his name, for crying out loud. We do know that Bush 43 went to great lengths to politicize the DoJ, and the Democrats chose to ignore that just as they ignored the war crimes of the same administration.
Given the number of highly-political Bush 43 appointees still in the DoJ, I think we really don’t know what these eager-beavers might dredge up about Mr. Sanders.
I think it is naive to believe that the GOP won’t allege and construct “scandal” after “scandal” for Mr. Sanders in a relentless effort to drive his negatives as high as Ms. Clinton’s. I think Fox news (sic) will pump those “stories” as hard as they can.
I think Hillary Clinton has had more than twenty five years of combat experience in resisting these abusive, hypocritical and flagrantly political attacks.
I think Bernie Sanders has had none.
johntmay says
Hillary has a small amount of big donors. Bernie has a large number of small donors. Reminds me of the Obama donors. Bernie is not a socialist and not running as a socialist. Yeah, sure, the right will hammer that one but only their base will take that bait. Bernie did better with independents than Hillary did in Iowa.
If we get Hillary, nothing changes for the good. She’s a hawk and she’s pro Wall Street. (In her walk, not her talk).
She was pro TPP until she read the tea leaves of the electorate and now she’s anti TPP. Once elected, she” switch again because the “donors” will demand it.
All she will want if she gets elected is a second term. We know what that means. Sell outs like the “welfare reform” that Bill signed into law; a gift to low wage employers with dead end jobs to fill.
She’s too far removed from the common folk. If she ever was one of us, those days are long gone.
aburns says
Johntmay I think it will be Sanders and Rubio too. What is going on right now in this Democratic campaign is exposing a very deep divide within the Democratic Party and leading to the debate many of us have been wanting to have for years. We have miscalculated before because we put party before principle. Getting behind whoever “the establishment” wants us to get behind as a party. As anyone knows who belongs to a ward, town or city committee there is tremendous pressure to conform and very little debate around the choices. This is a serious depressant to our democracy. I’m supporting Sanders and talking about him with everyone I know. He’s not perfect by any stretch (though the campaign he’s running is pretty great), but I think he (and the millions of new people that will be brought into the political process with him) are what our country sorely needs.
stomv says
Oh come on.
From an employment perspective, Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years. Hillary Clinton was most recently not in the governor’s office or higher in 1982 — 34 years ago. Neither has been “common folk” for decades.
If you want to extend “common folk” to the wealthy and powerful who connect with the working poor (a la plenty of Kennedys), that’s fine. While Sanders’ policies are much more focused on directly helping the working poor, I have no reason to think (or not think) that he sympathies or empathizes with the working man any more or less than Mrs. Clinton does.
Christopher says
It doesn’t have nearly the baggage among the younger set and Sanders won’t cower like we’ve seen for even the word liberal. Johntmay’s cynicism about Clinton is something I cannot more strongly disagree with, however.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
A strange thing is happening with the Bernie Sanders campaign.
It all started as a one man’s effort to speak about obscene contrasts between rich and poor, the well-to-do and the struggling. About difficulty in paying for health care bills, and for college debt. About people having to take several part time jobs to make ends meet. About money buying elections, and about the politics of Wall Street.
Cynics have said for years that these problems cannot be fixed – so one should not even try, because any attempt would be doomed to fail.
Then, Sanders started putting together plans to address these intractable problems. Now, look and behold, we have plans on the table for free state college education, for single payer health care, for drastically reducing health care costs.
The difference between him and Clinton is that he’s recognizing a basic truth: Unless you talk about these big issues as a presidential candidates, and you put forward radical solutions, they will never be fixed.
merrimackguy says
That’s what I have to say.
bean says
But he isn’t remotely qualified to be president. I hope to hell Hillary waxes him in the south. If he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him over the Republicans, but I’ll be holding my nose and hoping against hope that he isn’t so awful that we can’t elect another Democrat for a generation.
Meanwhile, a lot of his least attractive supporters are out there doing Karl Rove’s work by repeating every Hillary character-attack ever ginned up by the Republicans in the last 30 years. Do they think that women who are inspired by Hillary are going to join Bernie’s campaign after seeing Bernie’s team chant “liar” at the TV when Hillary was speaking? After seeing the misogynist comments the Bernie bots are posting on threads about Hillary’s endorsements or accomplishments?
I remember Deval Patrick shutting down boos for Romney on his election night gathering in 2006. That’s leadership. What Bernie appears to be about is demagoguery.
sabutai says
I mean, anyone can cherry-pick a shameful moment by a given campaign’s supporters. But calling Bernie a demagogue based on…a chant some people did at an event?…hardly seems the stuff of Huey Long.
The people chanting “socialist!” loudest and hardest are Hillary’s supporters. One would think they’d be wondering how their candidate is so vulnerable to someone who is said to be unelectable.
aburns says
Hillary surrogates on CNN and MSNBC are constantly calling him a Socialist. Even despite the fact that Sanders always corrects people and says, “Democratic socialist.” What I really want him to say is that we are all socialists in this country because everyone benefits from the programs that are “socialized.” Our system is a combination of capitalism and socialism. Using this word as an epithet is straight out of republican playbook: drumming up fear to influence the vote.
Charley on the MTA says
If Sanders people think that middle-of-the-road voters are going to parse “socialist” vs. “democratic socialist” … that is fantasy. Sorry. They’ll hear and think tax kaboom. I’ve looked at his brackets, I like them, but most folks won’t. That’s what worries me.
ryepower12 says
lots of people were worried about that man with the funny name, Barrack Hussein Obama, in the early parts of 2008, too — most of those attacks coming from the Hillary camp. Look how that worked out.
We’ve already seen this election, Charley. Elizabeth Warren beat Scott Brown supporting the same New Deal, anti-Wall St agenda. It’s a winner.
And lest you not think it will fly in redder states, may I bring to your attention one Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio?
When we nominate bold, fearless, great campaigns like Bernie, Elizabeth and Sherrod, we win. It’s the Hillarys, Kerrys and Coakleys who lose.
centralmassdad says
The GOP is more than capable of running their campaign against HRC, which has been running more or less continuously since 1991, with or without Sanders’ help.
They’re in the competitive part of the election. People get het up, because they’re trying to win. It isn’t personal, and you shouldn’t take it personally, especially when the candidate doesn’t.
doubleman says
Hillary Clinton is the most well-known and most experienced person to ever run for the Presidency. She’s very well-liked in the party and has basically the entire power of the party behind her.
Yet, a grumpy, little-known, funny-looking, old socialist from Vermont is making this race very, very close (and perhaps recently also outpacing her in fundraising).
It shouldn’t be.
Why are people so confident that she has the campaign skills to win a general?
aburns says
Doubleman I actually wanted to approve of your comment instead of disapproving!! It won’t let me take it back. My apologies.
stomv says
In a 400 meter race, you don’t take a snapshot five steps in and declare the race close. It’s nonsense for track, and it’s nonsense here.
After the first of 50, it’s tied. Sanders will win NH by 20+. HRC will win Nevada by 15+, and then win South Carolina by 30 going into Super Tuesday. When the dust settles Tuesday evening, Sanders will be way behind. It’s just a function of the internal demographics of the states.
It Sanders is within spitting distance of Clinton after Super Tuesday, we’ll have ourselves a race. But look at the polling, as thin and old as it is. I expect that HRC is going to win about 9 of the 13 Super Tuesday: Alabama, Arkansas. Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia. Sanders will win Massachusetts and Vermont. Unclear to me or tossups: American Samoa, Colorado, Democrats Abroad, Minnesota. The resulting delegate totals are tough to determine because DNC uses proportionality, but the seven states I see HRC winning have 609 delegates; the Sanders states have 107.
It looks like HRC will open a substantial delegate lead and, more importantly, a roughly 7 state lead after Super Tuesday. Four days later she’ll win Louisiana, Nebraska, and Kansas. On the 6th, Sanders likely wins Maine. Then we get into Mississippi, Michigan, and Florida, which will all likely go big on Clinton.
That’s my view, based on what I know today. Clinton rides momentum into Super Tuesday, runs up the scoreboard in a number of states the fist week of March, and becomes inevitable.
jconway says
Since Sanders is organizing there and I’ve seen a lot of (entirely anecdotal to be fair) articles or pieces where coal and factory workers in states like that are feeling torn between Bernie and one of the Republicans, usually Cruz or Trump.
That said, I agree that the bigger and more diverse states will be quite hard for him to win in such a small time frame. And if he hasn’t made up the gap with minority voters yet, it ain’t gonna happen. Fair or not, that’s just a fact at this point and probably a fatal one for his hopes to win the nomination.
hoyapaul says
and I like the analogy to this being five steps into a 400 meter race.
I think your scenario is the most likely outcome, but the one wrinkle is that a handful of them are caucus states rather than primaries. It’s possible that Sanders does better in these states than one would think looking at the demographics/political lean of the states themselves. This is particularly true in Nevada, which Clinton would likely win by 15%+ if it was a primary, but will probably be closer since it is a caucus. Nebraska and Kansas also fall into this category.
Even so, as I’ve noted many times, it is difficult to see Sanders making the race truly competitive unless he can demonstrate broader appeal to all parts of the Democratic Party, which hasn’t happened as of yet.
ryepower12 says
Iowa has never had such a close Democratic Party Caucus.
Let’s talk about what Super Tuesday, Nevada and so on and so forth look like after NH.
Hillary had leads in almost all of them before Iowa in 2008, too. Early state leads can disappear very, very fast in the winds of surprising election results in Iowa and NH.
centralmassdad says
Sanders’ play was to win Iowa and New Hampshire– two states where he has an advantage, and then ride some momentum mojo in these next few rounds, while hoping Clinton trips up.
He didn’t win Iowa, but has been doing a decent job spinning not winning, and so this scenario is still in play.
But I agree that the momentum mojo is not enough once we get to big states where he does not have those built-in advantages, and he needs some outside force to alter the overall dynamic. But, at 10 yards into the race, he has positioned himself to take advantage of an opportunity should one arise.
You really think Sanders is going to win Massachusetts?
stomv says
Yip, I do. A few reasons:
1. “Socialist” isn’t scary to MA Dem primary voters.
2. MA Dem voters like universal health care.
3. Lots of young, energetic voters in MA (Sanders big first demographic).
4. Lots of white, college educated voters in MA (Sanders other big demographic).
MA hasn’t been polled in quite a long time; I’m willing to “write off” the big Clinton leads polled in October. I mean, I’m not betting the house on MA4Sanders, but I think he’ll win. If Sanders can’t win Massachusetts, he’s going to get absolutely knocked to the mat on Super Tuesday.
==
And yes, I agree: if you want to win the 400M, it’s good to start the race neck-and-neck, at minimum. If you aren’t the favorite, you run a good race and patiently hope for a misstep by your opponent. I expect that’s what Sanders is up to, but I just don’t see HRC tripping up.
doubleman says
Although Sanders will do well in MA, and probably take certain areas (like Cambridge and Amherst/Northampton), HRC will win MA handily. She beat Obama 56-41 in 2008.
MA absolutely loves establishment Dems. Remember, this is the same electorate that went for Coakley, even that second time.
Christopher says
…had the largest proportion of delegates to the 2008 convention that stuck with HRC during the voting. MA is absolutely Clinton country. I will be shocked (and as a Clinton supporter worried) if she does not win here.
stomv says
and not easily supported by the polls or the Obama/Clinton results.
But, I think that results like Coakley feed right into some Dems who suppoted Coakley in the primary supporting Sanders. Of course, the results like Charlie Baker may feed right into some Dems who supported Kayyem or Berwick to support HRC, so its a double edged sword.
I think if Sanders wins MA, the cross tabs will provide reassurance for christopher — because if Sanders wins MA, he’ll run up the score on demographics for which MA has in much higher proportions, and will lose badly in demographics for which MA has much lower proportions. In other words, a Sanders win in MA won’t demonstrate strength across the country because his strength is oversampled in MA, and his weakness is undersampled.
ryepower12 says
Let’s see how things shift if Bernie can pull off the big V in NH. Things can move swiftly at this stage of the campaign.
stomv says
Charley:
Despite loads of non-citation-worthy comments on the Internet, including in “e-zine” articles, I’m pretty sure that Citizens United is not actually the same organization as Citizens United Not Timid, nor were they ever. CU was formed in 1988. Stone’s organization was born in early 2008.
Can anyone get a confirmation?
JimC says
I recognize stomv’s intent here, and the information is good, but the periods are insufficient masking of one the most vulgar words in the English language. For the sake of casual readers viewing a neighboring blog as the New Hampshire primary approaches … maybe this should go.
SomervilleTom says
So long as the information is in the thread-starter, then I think stomv’s comment should stand as-is. I agree that the acronym is vulgar. The acronym was not invented by stomv, nor did stomv mention the group. The group’s name and acronym was and is VERY intentional.
When we hide the flagrant and offensive vulgarity of the other side, we only enable them. The result is the ascendancy of candidates like Donald Trump.
JimC says
When I saw that and wrote my comment, it was the top comment in the comment column. Lead story position, in the ancient technology called newspapers.
For the record I disagree with your conclusion, but I see your general point. I’m not pinning this on stomv.
stomv says
Kindly delete the 9:06AM version, where I bungled the html.
As for the 9:07AM version, yeah, it’s vulgar. So what? I try hard to avoid writing profanity on this site, and don’t appreciate when folks over-sprinkle George Carlin’s 7 on their ice cream. But this is different — it’s a proper noun, and it’s the one chosen by the organization. Especially in a post aiming to resolve confusion between two similar names, there’s really no substitute for being explicit and clear.
JimC says
It’s an acronym designed to be offensive.
Maybe some of the women of BMG would like to weigh in on this? This is not an abstract issue, that word has power. The organization used it to weaponize it, and that’s why Tom’s point is exactly backwards. Charley handled it correctly in the main diary — we could see it without it being a banner.
Charley on the MTA says
And I’m going to leave it up. It’s not stomv’s sentiment, after all.
hoyapaul says
In fact, Citizens United Not Timid was sued for trademark infringement by the original Citizens United group. This New Yorker article makes reference to that lawsuit, down in the paragraph staring with “At times, Stone’s real party…”
Mark L. Bail says
I hope Bernie’s supporters remain in the campaigning. A potential problem with younger and/or inexperienced people is that they depart from political involvement when they don’t get their way. Politics is like winning at poker. If you want success, you have to be in it for the long-run. Of interest, Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium opines:
doubleman says
I completely agree but want to point out that all of these new, young supporters could feel burned if the anti-establishment campaign they supported loses to the epitome of establishment player who then likely tilts more centrist during the general campaign. They are signing up for a movement, not a man.
If that movement appears to have lost, they might be done – or look to another movement (perhaps Jill Stein). People can call them dumb and irresponsible, but that might not work (or have an opposite impact). Clinton will need these supporters for the general, so there will be some important work needed to build those bridges. From what has been happening so far, in which many Dems and very serious people in the press have directly stated or implied that supporting Sanders is lunacy, I have real worries about the campaign’s and the party’s ability to harness the anti-establishment populist movement behind Clinton (especially if the Republicans go with one of the less terrifying options).
johnk says
In the General you have a choice between two candidates (outside of a 3rd party run), and that’s the decision you need to make. So, for example if Sanders is not the nominee, then you would rather that Trump become the POTUS with a Republican House and Senate. That’s the end result of what Sanders people have worked for? Really?
Enlighten me you you logic here, because I’m not getting it.
jconway says
Mark is entirely right that the young, if Sanders loses, may be discouraged from participating and Doubleman is right to recognize that building a bridge from Sanders to Clinton will be essential for her victory in the general. What do you tell the young people in solidly blue or red states filling these arenas betond “she’s not the Republican?” A third party vote in Massachusetts counts as much towards its electoral destiny as a vote for a Republican or no vote at all. Every registered member of this site could avoid voting for Clinton and it wouldn’t be a drop in the bucket
Obviously this isn’t a 2008 situation where Obama could have accepted a place on the ticket had he been the runner up that Hillary wouldbe been wise to offer,
stomv says
For our young enthusiastic liberal brethren who simply can’t be inspired by HRC: you tell them to go vote anyway. Hand in a blank ballot. Vote for some third party candidate for POTUS. But then, while you’re there, go ahead and vote for the other positions. In fact, maybe read up a bit on who’s running before you get to the ballot box. Then, go ahead and cast sensible votes for House, perhaps for US Sen, maybe for gov, certainly for a variety of positions of even smaller stature.
We’ve got to get liberals to recognize that it’s not just about POTUS. More participation from young enthusiastic liberal brethren will necessarily result in more competitive races both now and in the future.
====
For the young, enthusiastic, liberal brethren who live in swing states: remind them how much progress President Obama has made on climate change and gay rights despite a Republican congress, and ask them if they think that a President Trump or Cruz or whomever would work to push that progress forward or backward.
jconway says
And I might add, getting them to look down ballot where their vote has the most impact is a critical component of what we are trying to do at UIP, and what I hope all political organizations strive to do.
johnk says
In a general election you look at both candidates and make a determination on who you think would best lead the country. Why wouldn’t someone who’s now engaged in the process want to do that? Not getting it.
I am personally enjoying Sanders momentum and the impact to the Clinton campaign. But at some point I need to make a decision on who I’m going to vote for. Then I will need to make a decision of who I’m going to vote for in November. I don’t have a candidate that I’m strongly tied to, but I’m going to vote.
Mark L. Bail says
what “you” do. It’s not what everyone does. There’s more than casting a vote. There’s a lot of work to be done. It’s easy for the inexperienced to get disappointed an bow out. Stomv said it best.
doubleman says
The choice isn’t that binary. If one is in it for systemic change and the two main candidates in the general look like they will not bring that systemic change, one can sit it out (or at least not spend money and time in support), even if one thinks one candidate has better policies.
It happened in 2000 with Nader. Many liberals were completely uninspired by Gore and saw him as the lesser of two evils (he really did suck then and ran a terrible campaign). If there’s not the bogeyman of Trump or Cruz, I think there’s the potential for that happening again to some degree.
This is all marginal and it doesn’t apply to the bulk of supporters but it may apply to the margins, and the margins are what can matter.
And you can call those people stupid and dangerous and whatever else, but when people, who so often act less than perfectly rational, are making decisions with their hearts, the results might not be what would be best.
jconway says
Forgetting the asinine time waster of relitigating whether Nader cost Gore the election, which, he most certainly did in NH, what movement came out of his protest campaign? Something fleeting or somethings enduring? Even Jill Stein locally hasn’t done anything with any of her campaigns to change Beacon Hill.
That’s where the power is, that’s where Democrats have had nearly six decades to use Massachusetts as a laboratory for boldly innovative government and have largely failed to tackle the big questions. That’s where the movement should be. After this primary is done where should these folks go?
I know where I’m going. It’ll be to Brockton, Fitchburg, Lynn and elsewhere where the state party is critically letting its constituents down. It’ll be wherever other folks ask me to go where they feel they’ll make a difference. Where will you go?
Charley on the MTA says
I would much rather have HRC try to co-opt these voters — however clumsily or transparently — rather than alienate them. Time for her to be a leader and follow.
Christopher says
…focus their energies on like-minded Congressional candidates.