Presidential Election 2016

[WHS]

Clinton's supporters, both among the general population and in the party itself, have done everything within their power to delegitimize Sanders and his supporters

It's like there was an election going on or something.

I think there's a qualitative difference between attacking Sanders as a poor candidate (which he may well be) and trying to suggest he has no business running in the first place. It's this attempt by the Clintons to use the party machinery to eliminate all genuinely democratic competition that has left us with this whole unfortunate situation, where we have to choose between a flawed, wounded, centrist, dynastic Democrat or a potentially unelectable self-declared socialist who obsessively focuses on a handful of issues to the virtual exclusion of all others. Turns out Hillary isn't as beloved by the rest of the country as she is by the political operators who conflate connectedness with merit.

[Didier]

I think there's a qualitative difference between attacking Sanders as a poor candidate (which he may well be) and trying to suggest he has no business running in the first place.

For the record, Hillary has also been thoroughly attacked as a poor candidate (which she may well be) and people from both sides have suggested that she has no business running in the first place.

Elections are dirty. Bernie has not been uniquely targeted in a way that other candidates have not.

[WHS]

You're correct! The Clintons also did everything possible to force everyone else out of the race. The difference is, with the others, they mostly succeeded.

[WHS]

Also if your excuse is just "Elections are dirty" then there's no reason to bother having this conversation. I think political process matters and I find attempts to subvert that process disturbing. The fact that this behavior is not unique in history is irrelevant.

[Didier]

We'd all like a presidential election to be strictly about the issues, but it's not. This victim complex is getting embarrassing.

[WHS]

Did you not pick up on the fact that I'm barely a Bernie supporter at all? I'm only caucusing for him because I'm so frustrated with the Clintons. But yeah, victim complex and all.

[Sacrelicio]

Clinton's supporters, both among the general population and in the party itself, have done everything within their power to delegitimize Sanders and his supporters

It's like there was an election going on or something.

I think there's a qualitative difference between attacking Sanders as a poor candidate (which he may well be) and trying to suggest he has no business running in the first place. It's this attempt by the Clintons to use the party machinery to eliminate all genuinely democratic competition that has left us with this whole unfortunate situation, where we have to choose between a flawed, wounded, centrist, dynastic Democrat or a potentially unelectable self-declared socialist who obsessively focuses on a handful of issues to the virtual exclusion of all others. Turns out Hillary isn't as beloved by the rest of the country as she is by the political operators who conflate connectedness with merit.

He's basically running against the Dems and Obama's record and was an independent until now. Not entirely legitimate.

[amiller92]

You're correct! The Clintons also did everything possible to force everyone else out of the race. The difference is, with the others, they mostly succeeded.

Care to define what "everything possible" means?

[Didier]

Did you not pick up on the fact that I'm barely a Bernie supporter at all? I'm only caucusing for him because I'm so frustrated with the Clintons. But yeah, victim complex and all.

My comment was directed more generally at the tone in this thread, not specifically at you. I'd be happy to have Bernie as president myself, but I'm not delusional about the process.

[David Greene]

You're correct! The Clintons also did everything possible to force everyone else out of the race. The difference is, with the others, they mostly succeeded.

Care to define what "everything possible" means?

Umm...have you not kept track of what DWS has done for the past couple of years?

[WHS]

Did you not pick up on the fact that I'm barely a Bernie supporter at all? I'm only caucusing for him because I'm so frustrated with the Clintons. But yeah, victim complex and all.

My comment was directed more generally at the tone in this thread, not specifically at you. I'd be happy to have Bernie as president myself, but I'm not delusional about the process.

This primary sort of demonstrates the real value of a robust process, though. Can you imagine if, say, Elizabeth Warren was running? Not only would she likely be running away with the nomination but she's a far less risky general election candidate than Clinton, who virtually everyone seems to acknowledge could be at many moment leveled by some scandal or another. And the main reason people aren't being given these sorts of choices is because party bigwigs decided ahead of time that it was Clinton's time.

I guess what I'm saying here is that when I grouse about subverting the process, it's not just because I'm some delusional idealist -- it's because I think better political procedures lead to stronger outcomes. It's a value that it behooves us all to support.

[Didier]

I'm on the opposite end regarding the process. The primary/caucus system puts enormous stake into low-turnout elections in small states nearly a year ahead of the actual election. As a result, the entire legislative agenda this year is handicapped — including the nomination of a Supreme Court justice — and the candidates are forced to stake out extreme positions on random issues well before it's necessary. Meanwhile, intra-party "debates" in which candidates don't debate anything or even really discuss specific issues exist only to divide the country further, as each side makes unfair attacks the other on prime-time television without the other side there to offer a rebuttal. A Republican debate is literally no different than listening to the Sean Hannity show, especially with a feckless moderator like Wolf Blitzer.

In an ideal world, Bernie would be able to run for president as what he is: an independent.

Instead he has to run in as a Democrat, and in doing so he's going against one of the highest-profile politicians of this generation — a person who was a secretary of state, US senator and first lady, not to mention a close runner-up for the previous Democratic nomination.

So yeah, the odds are against Bernie — or anyone else — winning the Democratic nomination, and frankly the tactics being used against Bernie are hardly surprising. What do you expect to happen when you run as an insurgent against the most establishment option imaginable?

I'd much rather have Bernie headline the Democratic Socialist Party ticket and eventually form a coalition government with Hillary and the Democrats, since that's much more reflective of where we are right now as a country. Instead, we have a dragged out primary season that is dividing both parties and will result in nominees — and a president — who leaves most of the country dissatisfied.

[amiller92]

Can you imagine if, say, Elizabeth Warren was running? Not only would she likely be running away with the nomination but she's a far less risky general election candidate than Clinton, who virtually everyone seems to acknowledge could be at many moment leveled by some scandal or another.

I do not think Warren is the savior you think she is. Honestly, I don't think she'd be beating Clinton. Its even conceivable that she'd be splitting the progressive vote with Bernie and thus making Clinton look even stronger at this point. I have to think that she knew that, which is why she did not run.

And this scandal business is ridiculous. No, she won't be leveled at any moment. No, there's no there there. But the right has spent three decades throwing things at the wall so that now literally everyone takes whatever next supposed scandal is at face value immediately.

And the main reason people aren't being given these sorts of choices is because party bigwigs decided ahead of time that it was Clinton's time.

No one but Elizabeth Warren had to power to decide whether Elizabeth Warren would run.

[twincitizen]

Man, I was getting to be close to 65-70% sure I would support Clinton on Tuesday, after having given Bernie a lot of consideration.

But now that it's looking* like Trump might actually be the GOP nominee, I feel like I need to start over. That doesn't mean I'm more likely to go for Bernie, just that I need to reevaluate everything. Having a Democrat in the White House next year is far more important that who I personally like better or whose policies I prefer. I don't know how much general election debates actually influence things, but I kinda think Hillary would fare better vs. Trump

*Chris Christie just endorsed Trump.

[grant1simons2]

There's really only one candidate who's getting young people more excited about politics right now. In my eyes, if we want a future where young people actually want to be a part of the political process, we need Bernie.

[Didier]

Lots of "old" people live and vote in this country, too. Let's not oversimplify this.

[grant1simons2]

I wasn't.

[twincitizen]

Young people will still by far have the worst turnout ratio among all age groups, even with Bernie on the ballot. And Democrats will still get walloped in 2018, because young people will stay home like they did in 2010 and 2014 (holy shit was 2014 ever awful). Something fundamentally has to change with getting younger people to vote, and it doesn't have shit to do with Obama or Bernie Sanders, or any other single politician. There are just way too many people who flat out don't care or don't think their vote matters. That has been a problem since....forever?

[Silophant]

Yep. And I don't see a solution, besides compulsory voting (which is good solution, as long as there's still the option to leave it blank or mark none of the above).

But, of course that would have to get through a Republican Congress that's spent years building an electoral strategy based as much or more on demobilizing the opposing base as mobilizing their own. Which it can't.

[Sacrelicio]

Can you imagine if, say, Elizabeth Warren was running? Not only would she likely be running away with the nomination but she's a far less risky general election candidate than Clinton, who virtually everyone seems to acknowledge could be at many moment leveled by some scandal or another.

I do not think Warren is the savior you think she is. Honestly, I don't think she'd be beating Clinton. Its even conceivable that she'd be splitting the progressive vote with Bernie and thus making Clinton look even stronger at this point. I have to think that she knew that, which is why she did not run.

And this scandal business is ridiculous. No, she won't be leveled at any moment. No, there's no there there. But the right has spent three decades throwing things at the wall so that now literally everyone takes whatever next supposed scandal is at face value immediately.

And the main reason people aren't being given these sorts of choices is because party bigwigs decided ahead of time that it was Clinton's time.

No one but Elizabeth Warren had to power to decide whether Elizabeth Warren would run.

I don't get how "the powers that be" could be pulling strings to keep down Warren because "it's Hillary's turn" but somehow not be powerful enough to prevent Obama from beating her in 2008, and not prevent relatively obscure guys like Sanders or O'Malley from running. The GOP clearly couldn't keep their circus under control and "install" Jeb or "buy everyone off" despite him being the son and brother of two prior presidents. It's no secret, politics are all about making connections, garnering support, helping your colleagues, and taking the lead if you can.