2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries

[RavynousHunter]

You're assuming he'd be cowed by Clinton into voting as she wants, economically.  I honestly don't see Sanders as doing that.  His track record more than speaks for his bullheaded stubbornness, something that is quite good when it comes to getting shit done, politically.

Also, please, don't waste your vote.  We're dealing with a savage FPTP system, here.  Third party votes only take votes away from a party that's at least less likely to screw us over. 

[Ironchew]

You're assuming he'd be cowed by Clinton into voting as she wants, economically.  I honestly don't see Sanders as doing that.  His track record more than speaks for his bullheaded stubbornness, something that is quite good when it comes to getting shit done, politically.

Also, please, don't waste your vote.  We're dealing with a savage FPTP system, here.  Third party votes only take votes away from a party that's at least less likely to screw us over. 

Ties in the Senate don't happen that often.

I'm not wasting my vote. I plan to punish the Democrats for not electing a progressive presidential candidate by doing my part to split the vote.

[The_Queen]

You're assuming he'd be cowed by Clinton into voting as she wants, economically.  I honestly don't see Sanders as doing that.  His track record more than speaks for his bullheaded stubbornness, something that is quite good when it comes to getting shit done, politically.

Also, not much cowing would be needed: the two vote together 93% of the time (and the most of their vote disagreements were on, of all things, motions to end debate on the senate floor).

Additionally, Hillary is far to the left of the way she's characterized. Her Senate record is to the left of Obama. She ranks in the top third of democrats with her voting records. The two biggest issues that people hark on are her vote in Iraq (admitted it was a mistake) and gay marriage (which the nation as a whole, including Bernie Sanders,* has evolved on)

*Bernie is on the record in 2006 during his first Senate campaign as saying that he supports civil unions over same-sex marriage. Since he attended a trans protest march in the 70's, and since Hillary was the first First Lady to attend a gay pride parade (yet supported Doma), I really see both of these positions as a compromises that they made to achieve some tangible benefit for same-sex couples (Sanders wanted rights for same-sex couples and Hillary supported DOMA to undermine the GOP's attempt at seeking a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage). Because 10-15 years ago, nobody would believe that same-sex marriage would ultimately be the law of the land (and up until 2003, states could make same-sex intimacy illegal).

[Ironchew]

I will agree that Clinton may be to the left of Obama, only to the degree that they're virtually indistinguishable from each other. That's what I thought in 2008 -- granted, that was back when I assumed they were both far more left-wing than they revealed themselves to be. I'm not thrilled with the prospect of Clinton essentially being Obama's third term. I think the Democrats would be in far better shape in 2020 after four years of Trump or Cruz, honestly; they'd likely be united behind a progressive candidate for once.

Of course, I would much rather that progressive candidate be Sanders this year, but the chances of that are getting slim.

[Skybison]

It's been said here before, but I don't understand why people assume that a Trump presidency would make the democrats/americans unite behind a progressive candidate.  I could just as easily see it going the other way, with a disastrous Trump or Cruz term reinforcing the establishment in both parties, who could point to their incompetence and say "see this is why you need us to pick insiders for you."  Plus economic downturns and wars and other such disasters generally make voters more conservative rather then more liberal.  And eight years of Obama did the opposite of uniting the republicans, so why would Trump or Cruz unite democrats?  And then there's the question of it it really would be only four years, Silvio Berlusconi got elected three times for example.  Or the long term dangers of having a presidential campaign based on nothing but open bigotry and threats of violence succeed, which would likely get other politicians to copy it.

Everything about punishing the democrats for picking Hillery over Bernie just screams "Bad Idea" too me.  The risks are huge and the benifits way to uncertain.

@Lizard

The Honduras link doesn't work.

[RavynousHunter]

I think the Democrats would be in far better shape in 2020 after four years of Trump or Cruz, honestly; they'd likely be united behind a progressive candidate for once.

Oh sure, they would.  The rest of us would be fucked, though, because Cruz would probably start the Third World War and Trump would drive our economy so far into the ground, we'd be closer to post-WWI Germany than is comfortable.  I'm not sure about you, but I'm not fond of economic ruin.  You saw how bad shit got under Bush, and he was just a fucking idiot, someone as actively malevolent as Trump or Cruz would probably kill what little recovery we've fucking gotten and, I'm sorry, but I'm really super uncomfortable with the idea of sacrificing all the social and economic progress we have made on a tantrum the slim chance that such a state wouldn't drag the Democratic Party even further to the right, which is a distinct possibility.

But, go ahead, flip that coin.  I'll do whatever I can to keep your childish ass from opening Pandora's Box and killing us all.

[mellenORL]

Sanders needs to continue on to the convention to keep his numbers respectable, and yes, as a VP on the ticket, a lot of the progressive groundswell momentum that would salvage would also change the face of Congress during the general election - lots of seats are up for grabs in both houses. Congress is by far the greatest threat, since it is the main reservoir of money influence infection and hideously bad legislation. Also, the SCOTUS appointment is pivotal, and simply must not be allowed to fall into GOP hands.

[pyro]

I plan to punish the Democrats for not electing a progressive presidential candidate by doing my part to split the vote.

That'll hurt you more than it hurts them. You know that, right?

[Skybison]

Also who are the democrats you want to punish exactly?  Do you mean Women and Black people?  Because the reason Hillary is probably getting picked over Bernie is because she's winning the majority of the vote, mostly due to female and non-white voters liking her more the Sanders.

[Askold]

I think the Democrats would be in far better shape in 2020 after four years of Trump or Cruz, honestly; they'd likely be united behind a progressive candidate for once.

You mean like how the GOP is in a much better state and united behind a single candidate after eight years of Obama?

After four or eight years of Trump and/or Cruz the Democrats would either be seen as "the party of NO" who have tried to fight back everything that the democratically elected president tried to do, which in turn would have made them go far more extreme than they normally are. A group much like the Tea party, growing out of fear and hatred against the POTUS, would have risen and taken much of the voterbase for themselves from the Democrats causing a strife within the party (most likely candidates would be the Occupy movement or the progressives who are now forming behind Sanders.) The only reason why the voters would not be disappointed at 4-8 years of the Democrats fighting against the government trying to do ANYTHING is if the Democrat voters are no smarter than the Republican voters are.

Or the other option is that the Democrats would swallow their pride and work with Trump/Cruz and give in to the GOP ideas in the hopes of being able to pass at least a few of their own suggestions as well. Which would probably be the better option for the country but it would completely drive away the progressives who would see this as betrayal (despite raging against the GOP who have been mainly fighting against Obama all these years) and thus divide the party in two.


But that's just my take on the situation and how it looks like from the outside.

[The_Queen]

Also who are the democrats you want to punish exactly?  Do you mean Women and Black people?  Because the reason Hillary is probably getting picked over Bernie is because she's winning the majority of the vote, mostly due to female and non-white voters liking her more the Sanders.

A good point. To build off of it, Clinton won women in all but three states (one of them, Wisconsin, split 50-50). She won the black vote by margins of about 85-15% (and, one of the big reasons Michigan came out of left field was that polls indicated African Americans would split 80-20 for Hillary, but Hillary could only grab a paltry 72% of the black vote).

I mentioned this in another thread, but FQA is pretty much Sanders' back yard: white, socially liberal/progressive, secular, INTERNET, and mostly male. I mentioned that it is important to remember that the general population is more diverse than our little section of the internet, and that other populations might not break for Sanders the way that FQA, as a group, did.

[Skybison]

I agree Queen.

I like Bernie Sanders.  I like most of his policies.  Combine him with a senate/house that will work with him and I think he'd be a better president then Clinton.

But a lot of Sanders supports really seem to be having difficulty accepting that he is losing fair and square.  More democrats voted for Hillary then have for him, and she always led him in the polls.  Democrat voters picked Her over him, not some evil conspiracy of superdelegates. 

No offense, but the minority of Berniebros who say they want Trump elected to punish the democrats are selfish short sighted morons.  Heck I'll chalk it up to everyone's favorite phrase: White Male Privilege.  Would you seriously be saying "I hope for a disaster because then my candidate might have a better shot next time" if you were the one who might be banned from the country over your skin colour/religion or arrested for having an abortion?

[The_Queen]

Or arrested for going pee while trans...

[davedan]

Look as an Australian I won't be directly effected but I remember the effect that the Bush presidency had on the rest of the world. And I am scared of Trump and Cruz.

[Svata]

I agree Queen.

I like Bernie Sanders.  I like most of his policies.  Combine him with a senate/house that will work with him and I think he'd be a better president then Clinton.

But a lot of Sanders supports really seem to be having difficulty accepting that he is losing fair and square.  More democrats voted for Hillary then have for him, and she always led him in the polls.  Democrat voters picked Her over him, not some evil conspiracy of superdelegates. 

No offense, but the minority of Berniebros who say they want Trump elected to punish the democrats are selfish short sighted morons.  Heck I'll chalk it up to everyone's favorite phrase: White Male Privilege.  Would you seriously be saying "I hope for a disaster because then my candidate might have a better shot next time" if you were the one who might be banned from the country over your skin colour/religion or arrested for having an abortion?

Pretty much all of this.