This is for all of you who can’t get over the primary…
- the people who support Bernie and don’t know who’s on their side here at BMG
- the people who support Hillary but don’t know who’s on their side at BMG
- the people who can’t stand the Bernistas because they don’t know it’s over
- the people who can’t stand the Clintonistas because they know it’s over
- and all those in-between…
The primary may not be over until that last whiner whines, but it’s over. There is no legitimate way for Sanders to claim victory, no reason to contest the convention, and no reason to complain As Michael Tomasky writes:
You always read that a candidate needs 2,383 delegates to clinch the nomination. And that is true if you include superdelegates. Hang with me here, this matters. There are 4,051 pledged delegates and 713 supers. Add those two numbers together, then divide that by two, then add one (i.e., 50 percent plus one). That gets you to 2,383.
But if you’re talking pledged delegates only, 50 percent plus one is 2,026. You never see that number, and I guess I understand why—2,383 is the number, officially. But 2,026 is a majority of pledged delegates—you know, the ones you win by persuading voters to pull the lever with your name on it. I’ve been mystified as to why the Clinton people aren’t pushing more awareness of the 2,026 number. If the situation were reversed, we can be sure that Jeff Weaver would be all over cable denouncing the mere existence of 2,383, that strutting harlot of a number.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton has the majority of the pledged delegates, and barring a historic meltdown between now and the convention, will be the nominee.
However there should be some recognition that Hillary Clinton will end the pledged delegate race with perhaps 52% of the delegates.
Although the 2008 race had similar characteristics, there wasn’t as much policy difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. There is a much wider gap between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
If Hillary Clinton (and her supporters) puts her thumb to her nose and says “nyah nyah, we win, suckers”, then I wouldn’t expect Sanders supporters to be that enthusiastic about her, and perhaps might even stay home on election day.
Hillary Clinton needs to acknowledge that close to half of Democratic voters are looking for something that doesn’t resemble her corporate-themed view of the country, and that a significant portion of non-Democratic registered voters are in this camp too.
Hillary Clinton has two paths to victory; one would be to pivot to the Republicans and adopt a conservative Republican-lite platform. Cut corporate taxes (on multinationals), reduce spending on the margins, Social Security grand bargain, free-trade rah-rah, “fight terrorism in cyberspace” by increasing data collection, etc. She could hope to court the establishment Republicans who hate Donald Trump, as well as wealthier Democrats who are generally OK with those things and who are doing pretty well in the stock market.
Or she could pivot to Main Street and focus on getting people back to work – through a long-term commitment to infrastructure work, targeted education and training, focusing on helping the smaller players by beating down specific monopolies. These are things that die-hard liberals would like to see, but many Tea Party types would support as well.
I predict she will shift to Republican-lite, will run a fear-based campaign (vote for me or else Trump!), and will get beat in the general by Trump, because Trump will be better able to pretend to understand the average voter. He knows how to rile them up, he knows what they are worried about, and he knows how to lie with impunity.
Perhaps a more constructive approach to our dialog here might be to resist the temptation to make “predictions” like your last paragraph.
In my view, Ms. Clinton is FAR too smart to fulfill you fears. It appears to me that Ms. Clinton has MANY paths to victory, and only a few paths into defeat — one of which you describe here.
Ms. Clinton is an accomplished politician and world leader. I reject your characterization of her candidacy, her stance, and her likely behavior.
I expect her to pivot to a strategy that combines the best elements of the progressive agenda of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and her own history, and offers that as a compelling and positive contrast to the twisted, dark, delusional, and deceitful utterances of Donald Trump.
be over. I don’t think Clinton can pivot; she is too far to the left now. So is the country.
I also think she doesn’t need to pivot. You’re right: jobs and spending are the way to go. I wouldn’t be surprised if they become her landmark accomplishment if she can get it through Congress. I also think it kills Congress in two years, if they don’t address it. The GOP is running out of white men.
‘
… I’m utterly failing to parse this sentence in the light of what I know about Hillary Clinton.
The Hillary Clinton who not only said the following in 2008, “I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me… understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Senator Obama“, but went on to become a valued member of Obama’s cabinet.
I think Hillary Clinton, more than any other person on the planet right now, can understand the situation, with all its allure and upside and downside, that Sen Sanders finds himself in because it mirrors closely the situation she found herself in, circa 2008. I think, being that side of the situation then, and handling it with class, would give her an entirely different perspective from what you might expect now. Of, put another way, why you think she would turn around and, contravening her earlier display of character, suddenly act with a childishness she has never exhibited escapes me…
Clinton won CA and NJ and 6 out of the last nine states in 2008, something that Sanders will not even do. But when it was all said and done, Clinton placed her full support to Obama.
I find nopolitician’s comment odd, almost wishful Bernie fantasy. It’s been a bizarre primary.
I think the “nyah nyah” scenario’s likelihood is basically zero. Sure, there will be the odd overzealous Clinton supporter who takes that tone. Just as the odd Bernie bro sticks with the “Bernie or bust” approach. But the candidate herself? No. She’s never said anything like that, and IMHO she never will.
Right now he still thinks he can win — however slight the possibility — and needs to sustain that belief for himself, his supporters, and, critically, his fundraising. But he will accept reality, I think, when it eventually is staring him in the face, and try to unite the party behind Clinton. How could he possibly do anything less for his supporters, in the face of Trump, who will treat them with contempt if elected.
Of course I don’t believe for a microsecond that Hillary Clinton will literally put her thumb on her nose and say “nyah nyah”. However she will set the tone, and her supporters will follow that tone, and that is how things will play out.
From the beginning of this season, the tone coming from the Clinton camp was “you’re going to lose, why are you even bothering”. From day t-1, when the Clinton camp was wagging the superdelegates and saying “why bother, we have such a huge lead”. Then, after super-Tuesday, same thing – “we have a lead, you can’t beat us, why are you bothering?”
I can look past a lot of that because that is simply how these things go. It is a race, a contest, and people will take any opportunity they can to win.
And now, even before the nomination has taken place, there is a huge push to get people to SAY IT! SHE IS THE NOMINEE! It’s not true any more than someone winning the presidential race in November is instantly the PRESIDENT instead of the PRESIDENT-ELECT.
This all feels to me like someone rubbing my nose in something. When someone refers to a “Bernie-Bro” in this thread, that also feels like someone rubbing my nose in something because the implication there is that Bernie Sanders supporters – and me, by extension – are sexist for supporting him.
I really don’t care what Hillary Clinton did in 2008, and I don’t expect her behavior then to somehow drive the protocol for what Bernie Sanders needs to do. Bottom line here is that I supported Bernie Sanders because of his ideas, his philosophy, and his goals. There was a difference in those things between him and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton needs to convince me to vote for her, and I can tell you right now that if her argument is simply “I’m not Trump and Trump is scary”, then that isn’t that persuasive to me because it is a blank check for her.
Given that both she and her husband have danced all over the partisan line, supporting fairly questionable conservative policies that have made this country a worse place, and has been relatively fluid with her positions on some things, forgive me for not being all that pumped for her candidacy. I’m sorry that I can’t just toe the line that others feel the need to and support her because “it’s her turn” and “she’s not Trump”. I want reasons to vote for her, and given that I would rate the presidency of Barack Obama as a B-minus – my local community is still mightily struggling and I can say that from a local perspective, I see little local difference between Obama and George W. Bush – the only difference perhaps being that less people are going to war from my hometown, something that I believe may change with Hillary Clinton given her talk.
I had hoped for something different, and am now faced with more of the same.
… Clinton, in 2008, demonstrated character, discipline and strength of will. She then doubled down on that when she took on what was likely the hardest position in the Obama administration: Secretatary of State… that is to say to be point for a then VERY unpopular United States. The very fact that the United States is no longer so deeply unpopular — and that this is so little remarked upon — is a testament to her tenure at State and her willingness to work for her former opponent. The effort needed to repair deeply damaged relationships and to start new ones across the globe was in her hands and, judging by the outcome, she was a success. Why would you not care about that?
But more importantly, you can’t dismiss that character and effort on her part and then sit by waiting for her to act in a completely contradictory manner just because… Well, I don’t know why you would. But you clearly do. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t willfully dismiss 2008 in order to expect different things in 2016.
What’s wrong with 2008 and her following tenure of Secretary of State as a reason to vote for her? She ran for pres.. She lost. She got back in the game working hard for the guy who beat her and for her country. And she did a great job. Why is that unimportant? I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with every decision she made as Secretary. Buy I agree that she made them. What would you suggest she had done differently? What would you have done differently? The Republicans twice lost to Obama and spent their downtime questioning his legitimacy and his honesty. Is that what you think she should have done? Al Gore lost to George W. and wandered off to make movies and sit on corporate boards… Should she have done that?
My impatience is that this site, and the web, is chock-full of references that address your request that Ms. Clinton convince you to vote for her.
In fact, her policy differences with Mr. Sanders have always been and still are microscopic — and amplified by a media and campaign dynamic that thrives on conflict and cannot handle two candidates who offer nearly identical policies.
I’m left feeling impatient because I see little evidence that anyone except a literal clone of Mr. Sanders will convince you. I’m left feeling impatient because my perception is that the very things that make you so hostile towards Ms. Clinton are the things that in my view will make her a far more effective President than any other candidate from either party.
I also want to ask, one more time, if we could please leave “her husband” (and her child, and her in-laws) OUT of this? Bill Clinton is not running for President. He is not on the ballot.
Why is Jane O’Meara NOT being discussed, criticized, and examined? My quick Google search came up with this piece that suggests Ms. O’Meara plays a critical role in his decision making.
I added the “sic” because the alleged quote is NOT, in fact, in the cited NYT piece. Shouldn’t we be concerned about a policy adviser who played a key role in driving a college bankrupt? Don’t inquiring minds need to know what REALLY happened? Did she escape charges because of improper influence of her husband?
My point in the preceding paragraph is to demonstrate that the multitude of allegations against Ms. Clinton look offensive and sexist when made against others. That’s because such allegations ARE offensive and sexist, and they’ve been repeated against Ms. Clinton so long that even good liberal progressives apparently accept them enough to form egregiously hostile views towards the victim of these scurrilous accusations.
With all the focus on Ms. Clinton’s marriage and marital history, we aren’t we then also talking about Mr. Sander’s first marriage to Deborah Shilling Messing? That marriage ended only 18 months after it began.
I’m impatient because my cynical bias is that we aren’t talking about these aspects of Mr. Sanders because the media — driven in no small part by ENORMOUS expenditures from extremist right-wing activists with very deep pockets — has spent decades creating the hostility you reflect.
She has been nothing but appreciative of the race Sanders has run all season. She learned from 2008 not to take anything for granted. Even with last night’s call she is fighting hard for every last vote in today’s contests.
…shown more signs of the latter than the former in terms of her options, but then again, she was ALWAYS more that way than some seem to want to give her credit for.
Many people have speculated about why Sanders is staying in the race, with possibilities ranging from “he still thinks he can win” to “he likes the attention.” Personally, I think it’s because he understands the value of the platform he has now–and how it is enabling him to deliver a crucial message to more and more people. Elizabeth Warren paved the way by making those progressive messages respectable again. Sanders has taken the ball and run with it. I think he will continue running with it up to Philadelphia because he cares about the party platform as well. At the Mass convention Saturday, all speakers called for unity, but there were nuances in whether they were saying “immediately if not sooner”, “after Tuesday”, or “after the convention.” Count me in the latter category. I’m with Robert Reich. Sanders’ goal here is to get as far as he can. I do not think that effort hurts Clinton in November, though some of his more extreme supporters are doing that. Someone else may be able to pick up that ball in 4 or 8 years because of the work Sanders has done.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, I have little problem with Sanders continuing on to this point, although the math has been against him since the first Super Tuesday in early March. He’s fighting for things like changes in the party platform, and he’s already won some concessions and is looking for more. Obviously if he said before California something like: “we’ve been beaten fair and square in terms of both pledged delegates and actual voters,” it would not be a very effective strategy for firing up his voters for Tuesday’s final push.
Here’s a thing few have mentioned, though: that Sanders is fighting for things directly related to direction of the Democratic Party. This includes some inside baseball stuff like getting Sanders people on the rules committee, changing how party primaries are run, and changes to the party platform.
Is it realistic to think that after fighting for and winning changes to the Democratic Party, that Sanders and his supporters will then desert the Democratic Party in November? I don’t think it is. In that sense, Sanders is not only doing the liberal movement a favor by nudging the electorate to the Left, but is doing the Democratic Party a favor by strengthening the ties between his liberal-independent base and the Democratic Party itself. This seems to be an underrated aspect of his fighting through the primary season.
Shouldn’t the votes of people in California, New Jersey, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota have the same rights to vote in this primary process as everyone else?
What sense does it make for the voters of New Hampshire to have a yuge influence, and leave the people in the much larger, more diverse states of California and New Jersey with no say in the matter?
Bernie should quit before the last five states vote? I don’t think so. He should reassess the situation after the last vote is cast, but not before.
I haven’t seen a push here to say that Sanders should drop out of race.
Did anyone?
If Californians and New Jersyites want their votes to be heard earlier, they can get their legislators to do that. And let us not forget that party rules encourage states to vote later by rewarding later voting states with more delegates (proportionately).
So, it was THEIR choice. They took the risk that the election would be decided before they get to vote. They got more delegates (proportionately), so spare us the whining.
As for the outsized influence of NH, IA, SC and NV, I couldn’t agree more. I’d love for the Democratic party to set up a rational primary (not caucus) system and deny sitting any state’s delegation (particularly NH’s) who reuses to follow the schedule by insisting on being first.
…Sanders “showing the flag” at convention, get himself placed in nomination, then take a full roll call. As a Clinton supporter in 2008 that’s what I wish had happened, though there’s no real suspense regarding the outcome.
so long everyone is punching at shadows. One Clintonista says something and suddenly every Clinton supporter does. Same thing with Bernie supporters.
I can’t name a Sanders supporter at BMG who has said s/he won’t vote for Clinton. JTM, Ryan, TrickleUp, Doubleman, Betsey. Am I wrong? Have I missed anyone?
I’m not sure anyone has said Bernie should drop out of the race, though I’ve come close. When I say it’s over and Betsey downrates me, I mean Sanders has lost. I don’t mean he should drop out.
Also, I have the right to uprate or downrate comments, just like you and everyone else does!
If so I guess it’s a good thing you live in MA where it likely won’t matter:(
I can only speak for myself; I don’t know for certain how the other Bernie supporters on BMG are planning to vote.
If a pollster calls my asking whom I am voting for I’ll say Johnson/Weld, since I do believe they ought to be included in at least one of the debates. But at the end of the day, I support Social Security and NATO too much to back a libertarian ticket, and the Greens would be so much more effective if they followed their European and South American counterparts and competed locally first. Had they been doing this consistently since the 90s, they might have a few members of Congress by now.
…that polls were not the standard for debate entry. They should be open at least to anybody on the ballot in all 51 jurisdictions and maybe to those on the ballot in enough places to theoretically get to 270. Otherwise exclusion from debates become self-fulfilling prophecies with respect to poll showings.
The media should really take over the debates from the CPD and host on their own. I was at an event with Bill Weld tonight, and he mentioned that most reporters he talked to wanted to include his ticket but were constrained by CPD rules. It’ll be interesting to see how Johnson’s anti trust lawsuit fairs. I may have another write up later, but it was clear Weld is moving them to the middle on a lot of issues.