Chris Bowers, speaking for much of the Netroots, has an important reminder. Win or lose tonight, Bernie Sanders and his organization and the blogosphere and other progressive organizations have already beaten expectations. And, for that, the long knives are already out.
Every major poll analysis outfit–from Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight, to the Huffington Post’s Pollster.com to Real Clear Politics–all show Hillary Clinton to be the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses Monday night.
If she does indeed win, there will no doubt be a lot of pundits and wags who will use that victory as opportunity to dismiss the Bernie Sanders campaign as ineffective and historically unimportant. The record breaking rally sizes, the three million contributions, the volunteer-based distributed field campaign, the rise from single digits in the polls to become a serious contender–all of that will be, to some, just another George McGovern or Howard Dean-esque failure of liberal, grassroots campaigns that can shout loudly at rallies and in the comments but predictably flame out when real Americans start casting their ballots.
For some reason, this recalls Brutus’s speech on the occasion of Juluis Caesar’s death.
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar’s, to him I say, that Brutus’ love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
–Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I
slew him.
Or, as Marc Antony said, “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”
This campaign may be long and protracted, or it may be over in a flash. Tonight’s results will have a lot to say about which way it goes. But, there are many people in the Democratic Party, the Clinton camp, and the media who are eager to shovel dirt on Sanders and the effrontery of his challenge.
That would be a mistake.
As Chris notes:
There has never been a contested Democratic presidential primary in history where elected Democrats and leaders of progressive advocacy campaigns have so unanimously thrown their support behind one candidate–a candidate who is actually well loved by Democrats, to boot. And yet even then, the combined power every elected Democrat and progressive advocacy organization has proven insufficient to prevent the bulk of the progressive grassroots from mounting a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton.
And there is tremendous tapped energy here. It can be alienated, humiliated, and marginalized, or it can be respected and acknowledged and empowered.
This is about more than a choice between two individuals. Clinton supporters should not view the Sanders’ challenge as some ambitious beast in need of slaying–put back in its box and relegated to our history books.
Like Sanders or not–see him as fit for the presidency or not– most of his goals and the goals of his supporters are also the goals of Clintonian Democrats. And if his campaign has expanded what’s permissible in our political discourse and moved the Overton Window to the left, it has already accomplished much of what it set out to do.
Tonight we find out if they’re capable of even more.
Most of us were hoping for Hillary to be challenged from the left. Even those who supported her knew that she needed that push to give her an excuse to not move toward the center. We got what we asked for, brilliantly done. No matter who we choose to vote for, we should all be grateful for the work Bernie’s done.
Most of us were hoping for Hillary to be challenged from the left. Even those who supported her knew that she needed that push to give her an excuse to not move toward the center.
Speak for yourself. The only reason most wanted a challenge from the left was to beat her. Not to beat her up so she’d say nice leftie things because one has to be somewhat blind not to notice that Clintons will say anything to get elected and their behavior in office has been remarkably consistent and primarily in DINOland.
Speaking for myself, Marie, most of my readings over the last months makes me tend to agree with tb92. And, most of my readings of your comments wrt to the Hillary Bernie campaign show that not only are you a committed supporter of Bernie but just as much a hater of Hillary.
With all due respect there are some of us who lean towards Hillary but truly don’t harbor any resentment or hatred of Bernie and his challenge from the left. Would that you could accord us the respect and consideration that we accord him and his campaign.
As the non-cynical person that I am, I harbor the belief that it is entirely possible, maybe likely, that the Clinton campaign will NOT engage in wholesale condemnation and marginalization of Bernie and his supporters. He’ll also have my wholehearted support should he win.
your comments wrt to the Hillary … but just as much a hater of Hillary.
Kindly explain to me why you feel so free to personally label someone “a Hillary hater” because you don’t share the person’s well-informed and well-reasoned opposition to the record of a candidate? I didn’t appreciate it when rightwingers and Republicans dismissed me as a Bush-hater, etc. Also didn’t appreciate the alternate version of being labeled an American hating, commie loving pinko for opposing the Vietnam War or any other the other disparaging labels that have been assigned to me or those like me over the decades, such as feminazi.
I don’t hate Hillary — don’t even know her. Do loathe almost all the policies she has stood for and supported over the years and her endless flip-flopping and denials when called on it.
…NOT engage in wholesale condemnation and marginalization of Bernie and his supporters.
Not before the general election. Afterwards, well I was semi-awake during the ’90s and fully awake over the past seven years (Rahm’s “fucking retards” comment wasn’t PC but it was honest). And what’s with all the use of “BernieBros” by Clinton supporters? The intent is quite clear — marginalization.
and she said it all with a straight face.
Impressive for a Hillary hater.
Feel better?
Several men felt a whole lot better when they called me a Saddam-loving, fucking liberal bitch in late 2002 and early 2003. Didn’t change the fact that they were being duped by a dim-bulb POTUS. Didn’t change the fact that a whole boatload of money was about to be squandered. Economic conservative Republicans weren’t about to consider that (they also bought that a war could be had for free), only the fucking liberal bitch wasn’t into squandering $4 trillion. Good Christian, economic conservative men that couldn’t care less about the deaths, injuries, and destruction they supported; only the atheist fucking liberal bitch viewed that worthy of serious consideration.
So, feel better. If you’re young enough, TPP and more neoliberal economic policies will bite you more than they will me.
re:
. . . , she said, presuming to speak for “most” immediately after telling tb92 to “speak for yourself”.
Also, there’s no contradiction between what tb92 said (“Most of us were hoping for Hillary to be challenged from the left”) and what you replied, which in fact affirms his claim (“The only reason most wanted a challenge from the left was to beat her”), though your reply seems to imply there is. Nor do you contradict tb92’s further point about why even Hillary supporters might see value in her being challenged from her left.
Assumed fact not in evidence.
It is not clear that the best way to deal with Bernie is to move farther left than she would otherwise be, nor that her strategy of choice would be that. Maybe she is just where she wants to be anyway.
To the extent Bernie’s candidacy makes a Nader style third party run less likely, I am grateful for that.
Maybe she is just where she wants to be anyway.
And that would be where exactly? This Hillary:
Or this one:
The Moderate, or a liberal or a progressive? She either doesn’t know or will say whatever she thinks will work for any audience.
“…are also the goals of Clintonian Democrats”
I really have no reason to believe this. Whether it’s true or not Clintonian Democrats should devote some effort to proving it.
In my ideal world, we would socialize medicine, food, housing, medicine, prisons, all education, and absolutely anything else that is a necessity for a good life. At the moment, though, I suspect Hillary’s plan is more likely to lead to those goals. Bernie has said repeatedly that his plans require a revolution. To make changes that huge requires more than just winning the primary. It would require that a massive number of people become involved in the political system when they usually don’t. It would require that he take not just a majority of Democrats, but a record high number of Democrats, and that would mean convincing a large number of women and black Americans to change their minds. At the moment, I don’t see that happening. Now, I’m in California, and there’s plenty of time for him to prove me wrong. That would be delightful. But as things look now, I will probably vote for Clinton. It’s not that I don’t want the same things you do. It’s that I don’t believe your path to be the most efficient one.
There are a lot of people who feel as I do. That’s why Hillary is leading in so many polls. You can insult and ignore us, but please don’t pretend that we don’t exist. It doesn’t serve Bernie at all.
…I suspect Hillary’s plan is more likely to lead to those goals.
…It’s that I don’t believe your path to be the most efficient one.
And this time, Lucy really really will hold that football for you.
Thats our devide. I dont believe its possible to do those things without a revolution. Climate change is not going to wait for increments, robots taking jobs is not going to slow down (5 million lost by 2020 with less than 2 million created). I see HRC as more like Keynes. Make incremental changes to head off calls for transformative change. We are sinking too fast to survive on incrementalism anymore.
In short, my path may not be efficient but I dont see your path as possible.
The Hillary path is more of the same at a time when we ought to be at least trying for a lot better. If we try we might not get it but at least we try, If we don’t try we certainly won’t get it.
You know, I’ve always felt I was one of the less lefty commenters on this blog. I have nothing but scorn for the so-called Emoprogs (many of whom, strangely enough, have been Hillary supporters since 2008 at least), and I’ve always regarded the whole Nader thing as worse than a waste of time and energy.
But Sanders is not a third-party candidate, he’s not even a radical if you listen to him, he’s just talking sense. I understand that all those who say “I really like Bernie’s ideas, but … regard the Hillary option as nothing but “realism”, but to me it smacks of complacency and even cowardice. I’m prepared to vote for Hillary if that’s the choice, but many of gave up before you even started.
anyone want to take bets on which of these things we see? I’ll put $100 on “alienated, humiliated, and marginalized”. How many points do i have to give?
Some here would probably spot you points. I, OTOH, never wager against anything or anyone with a 99+% probability of being correct.
D’ya mean to say that potential Sanders voters might be called f*cking r*t*rded and told to STFU and eat their peas and like it?? Or similar?
Who would ever think to say something like that to their alleged “base”??? I wonder…
Surely there would be some mention of ponies.
Like Sanders or not-see him as fit for the presidency or not- most of his goals and the goals of his supporters are also the goals of Clintonian Democrats.
No they aren’t. Anyone that didn’t get that by 1996 wasn’t paying attention. The records of the Clintons was so clear by 2007 that it was surprising how many still didn’t get it.
All this “it’s okay — you all did good work” in advance of the Iowa caucus is nothing but preparing the ground to repeat how it worked in 2004 and therefore, how it’s supposed to go down this time. IOW — all the wayward lefties need to line up for Mrs. Electablity.
It’s important to draw a distinction between politicians‘ goals and the goals of their supporters.
I actually think it’s correct that Clinton’s supporters want many (possibly, most) of the same things as Sanders supporters. Obviously a huge part of what we all want is to keep any and all Republicans out of office. Beyond that, it’s clear that both Clintons got where they are by skillfully presenting a baseline “populist”/”progressive” line of patter that their supporters, by and large, accepted (especially since conservatives have relentlessly portrayed them both, over the decades, as the worst kind of decadent liberal hippies).
The same thing happens on the other side. How many voters have Republican candidates gained by creating the impression that they will fight to make abortion illegal or to advance a “Christian agenda” in schools or whatever, even though they know full well they’ll do none of those things?
I have no great love for Hillary Clinton; don’t misunderstand me. I’m not defending her in the least. I’m just saying, to paint her supporters with that same brush is not accurate. (Many of them apparently want a female president, more than any other consideration; I respect this but I don’t agree with it.) I don’t think Hillary’s supporters go around thinking, “We’ve got to get Hillary in there so that we can advance the Wall Street agenda and invade more countries and kowtow to Israel.” Even the ones who are fully aware of her true identity are supporting her because they think she can beat the Republican candidate and win, which is preferable to a Democratic loss.
Billmon:
I don’t have any respect for anyone that puts “identity” (sex, sexual orientation, race, class) as a sole criteria for voting for or against a candidate or even puts it above any or all other considerations. That’s identity discrimination and it’s never right when done by anyone to another. If all things are equal between two candidates, I’d choose a woman over a man, but that’s only because women remain under-represented in elective office. If we were at parity, it wouldn’t be a deciding factor for me.
If women were so gung-ho on electing a women, why didn’t they get on that nearly a hundred year ago when all women could vote and start electing women that could develop into qualified presidential candidates? It’s not as if there’s more than thirty years between entering electoral politics and running for POTUS. Many do it in less than twenty years. It’s thirty-five years since the ERA died, and the only female presidential candidate women could come up with is the wife of a former president? With a pretty atrocious record of her own. What a terrible precedent to set for women, men, girls, and boys. Either be to a manor born or marry well.
I agree with you. (I said I “respected” the position, but I was just being polite.)
The larger point still stands, however: the relationship between a candidate’s “goals” (which are difficult to discern even under the best circumstances) and the “goals” of their supporters. I don’t think it’s fair to besmirch each and every Hillary supporter by claiming that he or she “supports” the things that Hillary will do. It’s way more complicated than that, as I wrote above.
Marie, you write: “only female presidential candidate women could come up with is the wife of a former president?” Women didn’t come up with Hillary as the first presidential candidate. She was the establishment choice. I believe women would have surely chosen someone else.
“Establishment” feminists most definitely chose Hillary. Way back in 1992. It’s been an on-going project since then. One that I didn’t even take seriously until 1999. Not enough women can be bothered to think seriously about politics long enough to entertain future possibilities and work towards accomplishing them.
Not quite technically correct;
Shirley Chisholm;
This fact was noted in 2008;
Give the lady her due, she was way ahead of her time.
Until the end of her life, my mother claimed that the only vote she ever cast that she was proud of was in the 1972 primary for Shirley Chisholm. Not because Chisholm was Black, but because she was honest, smart, and had a heart.
Should add that I very much wanted McGovern to have the courage to select Chisholm as his running mate.
So, white of them. Liberal DEM elites and feminists in 1972 had no use for Chisholm.
“because they think she can beat the Republican candidate and win, which is preferable to a Democratic loss. “
Yes, but we’re only at the first primary. They must be very scared that Bernie could win the nomination. Which I believe he could.
But some people evidently prefer to follow self-fulfilling prophecies.
Despite the new Quinnipiac poll showing Bernie at 49 to Hillary’s 46.
Being dismissed as not a quality poll. I wouldn’t put too much weight on this one because Q doesn’t have an Iowa caucus polling track record. IMO Q is developing into a good pollster, and has been focusing its development in a few states, Iowa being one.
For now, we wait for the actual results.
Wouldn’t it be just great if Bernie won? Take that Chris !atthews!
It’s easy enough to see movements in polls and public sentiment/acceptance, but not if it’s enough by election day. In 2008 to an outsider, it was clear that Obama was gaining in Iowa, but what wasn’t clear was if he’d had quite enough time to seal the deal by the caucus date because Obama only moved into leading in some polls in the last week. His win told me that his Iowa campaign was a week or two more developed/mature than what could be seen from the outside and most of the polling.
Seems to me that Sanders may be a week or two behind where Obama was in ’08. If so, that means he goes into the caucus with a tie and the IA DEM institutional powers take it from there.
Yes, too bad he lost. A shame that he’s lost the nomination by 0.3% of Iowans.
It has become very apparent that the goals of the Clinton supporters have nothing to do with the goals of the Clinton people
Straight that is a lie
The tactical argument has largely been exposed as an ideological one
it is grotesque to suggest that bloggers who have ignored this movement have anything of relevance to it
You choose not to be involved
Your right
But having spent the last 72 hours working this post strikes me as profoundly patronizing
The activists I meet in Iowa
do things like ghandi together
Much of the existing blogosphere has avoided sanders like the plague.
They are more interested in articles about trump
The idea they understand what has happened in this campaign is laughable
“The tactical argument has largely been exposed as an ideological one”
How so? I’m listening.
What I get out of it is that a lot of the people who say they like Bernie’s ideas BUT … don’t really like Bernie’s ideas enough to do anything to help make them a reality. They like to think about them, and then they feel adult by “knowing” they’re just pie in the sky when for his real supporters it’s a no brainer.
In fact I think a lot of these people are scared of Sanders. And, with all respect, they think they’re right to be scared.
And then a lot of them don’t even SAY they like Bernie’s ideas, because they really don’t.
Like Sanders or not-see him as fit for the presidency or not- most of his goals and the goals of his supporters are also the goals of Clintonian Democrats.
What are the goals of Tom Watson, who sometimes comments here? What’s his plan for the DNC? What is his plan for taking back the House of Representatives? And for keeping the Senate past January 2019? He supports a candidate who says we’ll never have a single-payer, or Medicare for All, health care system. I could go on but I think you get my point.
when Maybe it’s an age thing. You see, I’m old enough to remember the Democratic Party when it still had some of the New Deal spirit. I remember all too well when they killed Kennedy to destroy that, but they still didn’t succeed completely. Sanders is an extraordinarily courageous and gifted politician who is trying to revive it. The country and the world desperately need this. And that’s all this is really about.
Here’s an interesting article that supports my arguments:
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/the_electability_argument_is_bogus_why_bernie_sanders_isnt_the_secon
d_coming_of_george_mcgovern/
I’m not a Clinton Democrat or a Sanders democrat. I’m just a democrat. The main thing is that we put forward the best candidate to defeat the R’s and all they stand for. If Sanders wins tonight, great, and more power to him. Right now,as things stand I don’t think he would be as effective against the rethugs as Clinton, but I’d be happy to be proved wrong.
Amen. My heart loves Sanders but my mind isn’t convinced. But by all means feel free to convince it, Iowans.
Let’s say Sanders does well. He will likely to well in New Hampshire too but where does he win after that? Unless he can excite non-whites and non-intellectuals he’s in trouble.
Barring Sherman himself rising from the grave and promising to drive the Republicans into the sea, I don’t see how any Democratic candidate will have a chance to push forward a major policy agenda as President. What they can do is control the conflicts that we are engaged in (definitely favor Bernie there) and the marginal changes they can influence through executive action and congressional influence (favor Clinton here).
Honestly, I’d be happy with either candidate, because Sherman isn’t walking through that door.
Yeah, if Hilary wins, Hippies Will Be Punched, in a bloody orgiastic spectacle.
Her campaign will instantly pivot away from any vague semblance of pandering to the progressives and head straight to RepublicanTown.
Because, as we all know, running as Republican Lite is SUCH a winning strategery; it did us so well in 2010 and 2014.
Then in 6 months all those professional Democraps will bemoan the lack of enthusiasm ‘among the yoots.’ and blame those “damned selfish millennials for ‘hating democracy’.”
Exactly. In fact, I’m not even sure she could beat Trump. I’m sure Bernie could.
Iowa? Plenty of contests after that. If he loses IA, NH, SC and NV then I’ll think about what to do next.
I’m not 100% thrilled with him either, honestly–and fights between fervent fan clubs are the biggest turn-off for me–but I think post-mortems on his campaign are a little cart-horsey.
I respect that. It’s pretty much what I’ve been saying, with a little different emphasis.
Go on…what happened to the Roman Empire?
It mutated into the Catholic Church
This observation is gold!
We should be so lucky.
I didn’t realize that the 2016 version of the PUMA movement was already so well established.
My own, obviously brilliant, expert forecast is this: Clinton and Sanders split Iowa/NH; we then endure several weeks of media speculation; and on Super Tuesday, Clinton defeats Sanders everywhere. Sanders then bows out and asks his supporters to get behind Clinton. Meanwhile the GOP will continue devouring itself through the spring.
The one time I won’t listen to Bernie.
Then you’ll be supporting the Donald.
No, I’ll be fighting the banksters.
“Like Sanders or not-see him as fit for the presidency or not- most of his goals and the goals of his supporters are also the goals of Clintonian Democrats.”
I doubt that VERY much, or they would not be so quick to dismiss them as unachievable.
You mean “when”, don’t you?
Of course, it is extremely importantly to ensure that the focus on all Democrats is on the President…President…President.
Just which Democrat is going to retire superannuated Chuck Grassley of “death panels” fame? Or Iowa’s notorious House members? Anyone?
Who has Clinton been campaigning with? Sanders? Or have they been going it alone?
The notion of individual accomplishment and not internal party politics (despite the hype about “struggle for the soul of the party”) is what is striking about recent elections compared to the eras of Democratic dominance at the state level.
And the Republican party is in the same shape. The consequences of the Citizens United decision has sucked the reason for being from political parties.
And the political impresarios (even the self-promoting ones) don’t care about the quality of the politics or actually doing anything at all but ensuring that nothing gets done.
The only possible news out of the caucuses is if Sanders wins convincingly. Everything else is business as usual. Might as well be 1988.
These past days and my reading this thread, bring a statement of Ann Coulter to mind (please don’t crucify for bringing her up). In one of her slick, sleeveless black creations she stated in her inimitably snappy way that the Republicans were hoping for a Clinton candidacy because Sanders would be more difficult for them to defeat. That must have been some time last summer or so? I just remember the statement which I found so odd especially since I didn’t know who Sanders was. It now seems almost prescient to me. HRC is being outed as corrupt.
Oh please please please
don’t throw me in that briar patch!
…because it’s on fire!
After Bernie’s showing tonight, no need to weep for him;
Rejoice; he held his own and fought the Clinton Machine to a virtual tie in Iowa
633-628 as of this writing.
Next up New Hampshire …..
Virtual isn’t good enough. It’s going down as the pundits predicted. Clinton wins Iowa. Bernie wins New Hampshire as a New England as favorite son and as white. (Funny, I’ve been in Iowa many many times and the only black people I saw had out of state license plates, usually Illinois. I’ve been in New Hampshire once, but I saw more black people there, although it was at the shipyard.)
Posted before I could add “and gets slaughtered every else.”
yes, but read fladem’s post about “stolen election” – how is that going to play? especially in SC? I think the Clinton machine sealed their fate with this worse than any dogwhistle [and all the rest of DWS’s shenanigans]