Because I am pressed for time, I’ll give y’all a first crack at this. Tell me what you think about Shane Ryan’s argument that it might be best to split the left and sink Hillary Clinton in 2016.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
123 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
What do I think of it?
Thumbs up for this. The stupid, it burns!
All year. Maybe all decade.
And the most ahistorical, too.
Epic stupid, but sadly, not uniquely stupid, as I’ve seen the same boneheaded thing being said or implied by too many others.
I agree with him completely. Hillary is worse than a Republican because she drives a knife in our heart while Democrats always rally against a Republican. She is a judas goat for Wall Street.
I am routinely thankful that George W. Bush won the election in 2000, because it provided such a wonderful rallying point for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It’s not like the Bush Presidency did very much damage, and the Democratic Party has clearly learned its lesson about nominating candidates who are too centrist.
Outside of the Iraq War, which is a big exception, what real difference is there between HRC and GWB? And IIRC, HRC supported that war.
Don’t say abortion. Bush didn’t do anything about abortion. Social Security? True, Bush had a privatization plan but that wasn’t as bad as centrist Democrats trying to limit benefits and turn it from a universal plan to a welfare plan.
Gay rights? Weren’t those granted by the courts, not legislation? Did not HRC support DOMA?
I don’t see any difference between 2000-2008 and 2008-2015 except now we have a President that can actually make a speech without the world laughing.
“I don’t see any difference between 2000-2008 and 2008-2015…”
You obviously haven’t been paying attention.
I’ve been looking at my income tax returns, except for the one I didn’t file because I had no income. I just see the working class being steadily ground down, without out any political initiative to improve it by the powers that be.
I outlined the major issues above and why there was no difference in them. What else is there? The sham called Obamacare? Welfare for the insurance companies. Bush did give Medicare Part D which the Clinton’s didn’t seem able to provide. I’ll grant you Medicaid expansion, but it mostly covers the wealthier states and leaves the low income people in the poorest states behind, by giving those States the ability to opt out.
Sounds like you’ve had a tough time of it and I’m sorry to hear it.
All politicians can disappoint, and none is guaranteed to make your personal situation any better.
All I can say is, even in despair don’t throw in the towel. When you’re deep in the hole, try not to make the problem any deeper.
I don’t expect Bernie to make it. I would vote in the general for O’Malley or some dark horse, but never again for a Clinton.
Because of the DNC manipulation, I wouldn’t vote for anybody that they anointed, even Bernie. I hate cheats.
wow
I’ll tell you something else to “wow” about. I wouldn’t vote for Quinn and his war on pensions, either. I voted for that Green woman.
If you never hold Democrats accountable, they will continue to ignore you. As long as they see your vote as theirs by right, they will throw you under Wall Street’s bus to get that long green from them.
If you aren’t part of a serious effort to form a viable 3rd party in this country to actually make tangible the things you want, your stance is worthless. Don’t vote for Clinton . . .whatever.
You are worse than the ignorant 40% who vote against their own best interests; you should know better.
Oh, I should knowingly vote against my better interest. Why? Because I’m a serf of the DLC?
Is a serious effort to form a viable 2nd Party in this country. As is, of course, all we have now is a single party with two fraternities that take turns with the Presidency and Congress; it’s main goal is to persist the illusion that there the US remains a democracy with distinct policy choices embodied by the nominal parties. Through it all, the past 30 years at least, the Supreme Court remains solidly under control by oligarchy, their wild card, to play to retain power.
Your insult here is very bad form. Saying “you’re worse than the ignorant blah blah blah” is wrong. You don’t know him. Neither do I. Criticize his words, his thinking, his ideas he or she shares. Please avoid insults to the person you don’t know. (Thank you.)
There is no point at which people will wake up and then things will magically get better. When things get worse, they just get worse.
And sometimes things get broken to the point where it’s impossible to fix them.
…and when that happens, which group(s) are heavily armed and primed to start exterminating their (perceived) enemies? I somehow suspect that the purists who’d rather the place burn than vote for Hillary would fare somewhat poorly in the event of an actual revolution.
We have too many of these people in progressive circles. They are dangerous in their stupidity and callousness towards their neighbors. I don’t like Hillary Clinton because she represents an incrementalist approach to our nation’s fundamental problems that only kicks the can down the road to get resolved.
On the other hand, the alternative is clearly too insane to contemplate. Most of us don’t have the luxury that this writer (and so many others seem to have) to let things get worse before they get better.
What a goddamn fantasy!
…they(we)’re engaged and attentive. Whether their/our opinions are misguided, at least we think about it and participate. All the criticism of what so many here perceive to be their/our radical notions is misdirected, and counterproductive if at least one of our shared goals is to increase democracy.
And anyway, why should any of us want the vote of a citizen that finds a candidate repugnant to their beliefs?
Yes, by all means, let’s kick them out and diminish our limited ranks even further; that’s the true progressive way. But you know what, they wouldn’t think of removing you, my friend. Wouldn’t occur to them/us in a million years, because you know what? You’re entitled to your opinion; and your vote. That’s what democracy means to them, to us, and hopefully to you as well.
Before folks criticize anyone that threatens not to vote for Hillary, please be sure to criticize the 40% or more of the electorate that not only never show up to vote, they likely rarely give their political responsibilities as American citizens the time of day.
I’m quite capable of criticizing both, though in this case the people who’re engaged, presumably are aware of the stakes, and yet deliberately choose to empower the right wing are more culpable than those who’re unaware. At least they have an excuse.
What’s their excuse?
Neal,
You so miss the point. I could care less whether they are in a progressive circle or not. This shit’s not about being in a club and keeping it pure. Nor do I care that someone is paying attention ….. when that person either is doing nothing (to get a viable 3rd party dynamic put in play) or for whom being a progressive is this lofty little perch that allows them to wish a whole lot of pain on the rest of us . . . .until miraculously, the stupid 40% you refer to suddenly find Jesus and start voting their best interests. How f**#ing selfish and arrogant can you and your cohort be?!!??
I get very frustrated with the ignorant 40% (or more) who can’t even take the time to vote, let alone vote for their best interests. I wish change could be more immediate and comprehensive. But I also know that I live in a complex society and our problems are part of a web of history, culture, and economy which no one person or group is going to have an answer for (not even a liberal like myself).
I also come at this from a faith perspective. Out of that, I would never wish what you and your cohort do, on the backs of my neighbors! I would never completely write off a group of people – as much as I might wish to at times – because it is important that they be taught a lesson. These people are my fellow countrymen and there is something to learn in the struggle to live with them.
Out of that faith perspective, I also believe in the mystery of God acting through history and people. Wishing for a GOP victory (if my candidate or policies can’t win) strikes me as childish, selfish, way, way overly simplistic and stupid. Worse actually than the 40% who can’t seem to vote their best interests, because YOU and writers that push for a Hillary loss (so things will get worse and then better) should know the hell better.
Pathetic really that you can’t see that.
Pathetic or not; can’t stand Hillary. I’ve fallen in line as a good little Democrat election after election since Carter. Bought the crap the Democratic establishment was selling cycle after cycle and the damage Bill and Hillary Clinton have done…. but you don’t see it and you disagree. What’s so pathetic about it?
“can’t stand Hillary”
And there it is.
She’s disgusting. The very definition of the word. There’s nothing pathetic about calling shit what it is. It’s unfortunate that there’s so much of it in Democratic Party politics, but there it is, look out, you don’t have to step in it. Nothing pathetic about the fact that it exists, nor pointing it out. Has everyone (almost) here lost their sense of smell?
“She’s disgusting. The very definition of the word.”
There you go.
…for quoting me accurately.
Neil,
I said pathetic because in all that time that you said you’ve fallen in line, you didn’t and aren’t doing anything to establish a viable 3rd party to compete against the Democratic Party. Instead, out of frustration, you are taking your marbles home and deciding to do the thing to make things worse in a vain hope they’ll get better after a Trump or Cruz or Rubio.
I’d suggest you channel some of this frustration into at least doing something local that is in synch with your respectable wish for a much more progressive country.
No, I’ve fallen in line for Democrats, election after election for 36 years now. Since Carter, who, aside from his homophobia, I kind of liked. Almost voted third party in 1980, but I surely won’t vote for a Republican this time. I might vote third party, or write in rather than vote for Ms. Clinton in the general, if she’s nominated.
(I’ve posted elsewhere that it’s hard to see the possibility of a viable 3rd party, when it’s debatable that we have two parties now.)
Thank you at least, for not saying I’ve lost my marbles.
Because that worked so well in 2000.
I remember someone responding to Nader’s version of this argument by saying, sure, we’ll watch GW Bush dump poison in a river while we say that’ll teach those stupid Gore voters.
Whoever said that had no idea HOW MUCH poison GW Bush would dump on the world.
It’s not to early to point out, too, that Sanders is not running as a third-party candidate, and in the case that he doesn’t win, is likely to endorse the Democratic candidate. So this is essentially an argument for Sanders’ leadership unless he doesn’t win the nomination, and then – what the hell does that guy know, anyway.
It’s idiotic.
Great, then we wake up and realize the Supreme Court is locked into complete teabaggery for the next quarter of a century, minimum. Great strategy there.
“What if we didn’t vote, and Hillary lost as a result? Like it or not, that makes a profound statement. It would likely force the Democratic party to move left …”
No. No, it wouldn’t. When ‘things get really bad,’ the entire country moves to the right. Catastrophe and terror fuel conservatism.
Is that satire? I’m thinking maybe it’s satire.
Yes. I often wonder how different the world would be if Gore had been elected president instead of Bush. Our response to 9/11 (if it had happened) would definitely NOT have been to go to war with Iraq. And we wouldn’t have had seven years of the United State being terrorized by their own Presidential cabinet, nor would he have let the snakes who think torture is a good idea out of their boxes. No, the country is definitely further to the right, I think, because Bush was president.
Well, once we “moved on” after republicans impeached Gore for being negligent on and leading up to 9/11, I guess that we could speculate on what President Lieberman might do, and, well.. not pretty.
…if Gore had won, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. Say whatever you want about Gore, he wasn’t a fratboy f-up like junior.
That’s undefined. Operationally in the counter-terrorism institutions, not much had changed in the less than nine months of GWB’s reign. The plot pre-dated the Bush Administration. What may have differed was the amount of attention paid to the “hair on fire” reports. However, that may not have led to identifying the operatives and shutting down the operation. (Recall, the millennium bomb plot wasn’t foiled by the Clinton admin but a couple of astute border control employees.)
If one is as conspiratorial minded as I am, a key difference could have been that a powerful VP wouldn’t have been running domestic war games on the day the plot went operational. However, the operation was so well planned and timed that it may not have made much difference if the first hijacking had been quickly noted. The second plane took off at the same time that the first one had been hijacked. There really was only about ten minutes between the hijacking of AA11 and the ability of the pilots in the second plane to take any action that could have precluded being hijacked. AA77 took off six minutes after the first hijacking, but it’s extremely unlikely that anyone would have connected the hijacking of AA11 to planes that departed from other airports. Not sure an alert before 8:30 to all pilots in the air would have changed anything. Recall that the second and third planes had been hijacked before the first WTC crash.
The scrambling of fighter jets would have occurred earlier, but would they have shot down the second or third plane before they got to their intended destination?
Had the ACARS pilot warning gone out with the crash of the first or second plane, UA 93 might have been rescued. Might because it did receive the warning at 9:24 and was still hijacked. (Had its departure not been delayed, it would have been as totally vulnerable as the other three planes were regardless of whatever ground efforts were made.
So, had Gore been President on 9/11, AA11 would still have crashed into the WTC and the best case scenario for #2 and #3 is that they wouldn’t have reached their intended targets but would have crashed, and UA 93 made an emergency landing. Since we wouldn’t have had the actual 9/11 events for comparison, three terrorist hijackings and crashes would have been as devastating as the actual 9/11.
The after effects would have differed. The GOP would have wrapped it around Gore and Clinton’s necks. DEMs had to go soft on GWB because it was mostly Clinton’s intell and military operations on duty in the months before and on that day.
Funny that the guy opens his article with a quote about that venerable zombie bugbear the DLC, but then makes this argument. I guess he doesn’t know that the DLC was formed immediately after Dukakis’ loss, on the theory that Democrats couldn’t win without tacking right. Just as likely that after a 2016 loss the party decides that Clinton was driven too far left pursuing the Sanders crowd.
Not a zombie. Alive and kicking all over the Clinton campaign. They don’t call themselves the DLC any more, but they still run the Democratic Party, more-or-less, top-to-bottom.
If you start from the premise that the Democratic party is invariably the puppet of a shadowy and nefarious cabal, what does it matter who the nominee is? If Sanders believed the same, do you think he’d be trying to become the nominee?
Of course Sanders “believes the same.” He’s not calling for a political revolution to get along with the PWB in the Democratic Party; and clearly most of them want little to do with him.
I’ve used the term cabal to describe the inner power structure of the Democratic Party. It’s an apt description. There’s a reason the Democratic Party is despised almost as much as the Republican Party, and Democrat’s lack of interest in voter’s known concerns is almost as comprehensive.
(When speaking of cabals, nefarious and shadowy is redundant, isn’t it?)
I’m partial to the Will Rogers interpretation: “I’m not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” Which is to say, I’m more than a pinch skeptical that any particular cabal, let alone a disembodied DLC, is calling the shots.
One of the things that makes me skeptical is that eight years ago (back when there was such a things as the DLC, incidentally), my candidate took on the establishment favorite and, after a protracted fight, won the nomination. It can be done.
Look at the names in that administration: Hillary Clinton. Rahm Emanuel. Larry Summers. Robert Gates (R-Bush), Ken Salazar, Kathleen Sebelius (R-Kansas), William Daley, Timothy Geithner (R-Deep Space Nine), Joe Biden. This is a DLC-designed administration all-the-way-through, more than a few outright Republicans included. No offense to young Mr. Obama, but he was pretty young and naive when he started out and pretty much did as he was told by the DLC power structure that was totally calling the shots after Obama won in 2008, hardly a profile in courage in the beginning whatever he thought or said when he was running. Losing Kennedy less than a year later cleared the decks for the travesty that was the ACA and subsequent Democratic loss of Congress in 2010.
Be clear. Obama’s administration has been a DLC operation from the get-go.
I suspect that a majority of Democrats have yet to figure out the real damage that ClintonCo. did to this country. Still suffering from the delusion that Clinton was instrumental in a decent economic recovery instead of get several lucky breaks. Oh, and they also think that the Clinton budget surplus was huuge and multi-year, and haven’t a clue that the taxing and spending policies during those years were bad for long-term economic health and sustainability.
That surplus slowed the economy and was an illusion.
I kind of thought this is where you might be coming from. That line won’t sell with me, or with a lot of other Democrats, and with good reason. I wouldn’t expect you to accept my reasons: I don’t think that anybody who believes that the world is steered by cabals, redundantly shadowy and nefarious or otherwise, is easily convinced to part with that theoretical apparatus for reasons that Richard Hofstadter laid out more than fifty years ago.
But perhaps you might consider that I, like you, am also an interested observer and participant in our domestic political life, and that, like yourself, also place the premium on social and economic justice that distinguishes us from our fellow citizens on the right. Can you imagine that such a person might arrive at conclusions totally unlike yours? Or is it necessary to cast me, too, as naïf or subservient to evil, in so far as my analysis departs from yours?
When followers of Bernie Sanders accuse the president of naïveté or bad faith, they do much more to limit the potential of Sanders’ candidacy than Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, in all of her bungling, could hope to do.
Where did I say “the world is steered by cabals?” You want to criticize what I actually said, go ahead. But glibly inventing an assertion to serve your argument is lame. Likewise, you’ve taken a leap to suggest I’ve given your personality quirks thought. I’ve read what you wrote.
Mr. Obama’s record is well-documented. That much of the “thrust” of his leadership is borne of naivete may be a disputable interpretation, but it’s not hard to wonder when you look at the contorted politics he’s practiced over the past seven years. I don’t think he acted in bad faith; I think he had a plan that was silly. It was clearly silly, from the beginning of his administration. The only harm in pointing it out, is to the sensitivities of those that deeply admire him, and concern trolls defending Clinton’s bid to succeed him.
When has change ever come to America except in the wake of right wing disaster? The country wants so badly to believe thd rightist ideals. Of course, that was before technology. I honestly dont have a fucking clue which way things improve.
How much worse than GWB do you need to get? We sure did not get any FDR as blowback.
Thats Obama’s fault pure and simple.
It’s clickbait. No different from any site that only cares about clicks. I’m more interested in what people think will happen in 2018 and 2020, if Clinton is elected next year. What is the plan to retake the House any time soon? What’s the plan to hold the Senate in 2018, provided we can take it back next year?
Right. And how will her election help us win back statehouses and governorships?
You want politicians and other Democrats to take your seriously and listen to your concerns?
Then you have to vote and you have to vote every time. You’re not part of the base if you don’t vote in every election or if you encourage others not to vote.
These are the articles that prove to me that some people on the left have no interest in actually solving problems, they’d rather just make a point. Being right isn’t enough most of the time.
Or be seen doing so. The kind of “hipster brogressivism” espoused by Salon is not about real world outcomes, but like all hipsterism, about ostentatious self display.
The country would be turned into total anarchy and the GOP Domestic Terrorists would come out in droves to eliminate all those that do not follow GOP philosophy.
The GOPDT’s will believe that they will defeat easily all others. The problem is there are far more armed members of Americans that do not follow the GOP then they know. Many with prior combat and military training. Numerous are highly angered with the GOP for numerous attacks financially on all veterans programs. Thus they will be easily motivated to action.
So do as the article says and see a bloody battle result in the USA. Think no way, there are over 50,000 veterans homeless right now, just one of a numerous amount of future recruits to fight the GOP. It is a very real possibility. Also remember I and numerous others swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States and we will against all foreign and DOMESTIC threats.
I said this in a previous post:
“If Bernie’s message does not resonate given at least the same opportunity Hillary had against Obama in 2008, I can live with that. If Bernie’s message doesn’t resonate because large numbers of people do not hear it because of the DNC, that’s another story. If Democrats feel cheated because the DNC tried to tilt things toward Hillary there is damage done to the Democratic Party. Maybe DWS and the DNC don’t care about that 30%, which by the way is higher than Obama had at this same point in the 2008 campaign despite the Democratic Establishment freeze out on Bernie.”
Fairness is the key here, especially the new decision this time to not allow candidates to participate in non-DNC sanctioned debates. DWS just doesn’t want Bernie to be the new Obama crushing Hillary’s big lead as in 2008. The best thing Debbie Wasserman-Shultz could do at this point is to resign her position in the DNC to avoid the ugly split that is quite possible when a former Hillary campaign co-chair uses her position in the DNC to shield Hillary from contrast to Bernie’s message. It’s difficult to remain a Democrat when my party pulls such a blatantly unfair stunt.
Do you suppose that Clinton was the underdog in 2008?
I remember that Clinton was the odds on favorite to win the nomination in 2008 right into the spring of that year. So, no, not the underdog, until she lost.
I think I agree with you that it’s too early to count out Sanders in 2016; if that’s your point. If you’re saying that there’s another valid comparison to the way the Democratic Party is running the nominating contest this time compared to 8 years ago, that they’ve gotten much better at shutting out the non-Clintonites this time around, I agree with that as well. If you’re implying that Sanders (or any other potential Democratic contender this cycle) has been given a fair, unbiased shot at the nomination, then I disagree.
I think we agree that it’s a mistake to concede the race before it is run. I think that a piece like the linked one compounds that mistake by portraying the candidate as too weak to overcome procedural barriers that any outsider candidate is going to face.
But I don’t agree that the establishment has “gotten much better at shutting out” outsiders, because had the Michigan and Florida contests gone unchallenged in 2008, it’s entirely possible that would have derailed Obama’s campaign.
The debate sanctions are just the kind of nonsense I expect from DWS, but weak sauce by comparison, and would easily be overturned if Sanders or any other candidate were competitive in the primaries.
Nope, nopity nope nope nope.
I don’t care who wins the Democratic nomination, whether it’s Hillary or Bernie or that nice man down the street from me. No Republicans, not ever. Period.
Ryan’s argument may be, as he puts it “tactical,” but it is hardly rational.
Let’s be adults here, and understand that the election of any of those in the Republican clown car will be disastrous for this country, and disastrous in a way that we would in all likelihood never recover from.
Yes, Mr. Ryan, not electing a Democrat would be a “profound statement” that would be made to a rapidly sinking ship, full of teabaggers and other right-wingers who would cheer on the destruction gleefully. If we on the left don’t join together behind a candidate, whoever that may be, and work hard to take over Senate and House seats, which effort would surely benefit from such unity, then we are surely doomed. I say this as a 67-year-old liberal, who worked on the campaigns of RFK, McGovern, and Obama. I want to see Feingold back serving Wisconsin. I want to see the Speakership back in the hands of Pelosi. I want to see any SCOTUS seats that open up going to Democratic appointees.
And, Mr Ryan, if Republican incompetence hasn’t been “laid bare” by now, it is only because there are a hell of a lot of willfully blind and/or willfully ignorant people who choose not to acknowledge it. Because it is there for all the world to see, and has been for some time. Not electing Clinton isn’t going to change that, but it will, I imagine, provide some kind of smug satisfaction for those who decide to sit things out.
And I can’t imagine for a moment that Senator Sanders would want such a disastrous outcome to befall the country and the people he so clearly loves.
What a joke! I once knew a another loony progressive who proposed moving a bunch like him to Wyoming to take over the state. Shane Ryan needs to get out if fantasy land.
It’s a polemic, that article, and the others like it, isn’t it? The venting is probably a healthy exercise.
A lot of longtime Democrats are barely Democrats and will never be strong Democrats. It’s a crappy organization since Clintonites took it over in the 90s. I’ve longed for a viable Socialist to vote for my whole life so it’s hard not to be all in for Sanders. At long last, you know, someone to actually vote for instead of just voting against the Republican.
Truth is, the way the Democratic Party establishment is running this election, it looks like their only goal this cycle has been to eliminate competition to the Hillary. It’s incomprehensible to me that during an election cycle with no incumbent, the Democratic Party establishment agreed, apparently en-masse, to forgo the democratic process of elections and simply anoint the former wife of an impeached former president. It’s not hard to understand why especially younger voters look at the situation and are less than enthusiastic about keeping their mouths shut and falling in line.
Surprising to me that so few here even bother to play with the idea. As if “thinking through” the proposition is too scary to entertain conceptually. Might be why the Democratic Party stopped being the party of ideas in the early 1970s. Why bother when Democrats expect nothing and willingly accept warmed over Republican ideas, usually clapping loudly.
On what basis do you assume that few here have played with the idea/thought it through? I did exactly that and decided it was one of the stupidest things I’d read in quite a while. I volunteered on the John Anderson campaign when I was 13. Then I got to grow up with Reagan which was a really good insight into the value of protest campaigns and of championing Quixotes. If I needed a second lesson in that department, I also got to watch what happened with Bush the younger in the face of all those who said it needed to get better worse before it could get better. My lifetime of experience in the political world tells me that what happens is not that better follows worse in these cases, it’s that worse does not lead to better it just leads to more worse. Is Hilary Clinton my dream candidate? No. Is she infinitely better than any member of the Republican field. Absolutely.
I think that is the goal – elect Hillary. I also suspect the republicans are not all that upset at the idea. After all they control congress and nothing can get done without that. A Sanders nomination and win could shake up the political world, if it extended to congress. And it just might in the midterms with him as President. I doubt Hillary even much cares about it, and certainly not the other guys.
Shane Ryan isn’t the only one. Even worse, check out H.A. Goodman and Walter Bragman. All “liberalw” dumber than a box of rocks … and all writing for Salon. Somebody ought to be more careful what they put in the punch bowl over there.
I can’t help wonder if these new millennials are really that stupid, or if they’re part of a stealth GOP black ops group that’s punking progressives.
Sheez. The vitriol and insults lashing out at younger voters here is shocking, and discouraging. Why, do you think, anyone wants to be in a Party with folks like so many here that lack any sympathy with idealism. Just one after the other labeling voters we’d probably like to attract and welcome into our “tent,” looney, dumber-than-a-box-of-rocks, crazy, stupid, and worse.
Lighten up. It’s an election. The kids are paying attention. They’re threatening not to vote, threatening to throw the election against the Democrats, insisting on electing a gasp Socialist. Trouble. It’s going to lead to brownshirts patrolling, beatings, and blood running in the streets! Run for your lives!!
Most of the comments here make Democrats sound like a bunch of self-loathing, exhausted cynics. I don’t blame dissenters for not caring a whit about the fate of the Democratic Party, nor it’s presidential nominee. The Democratic Party desperately needs new blood, but damned if it has a clue how anemic its become.
If you’re against the Democratic Party, I’d guess you may be a Republican.
But if you’re a Sanders supporter — assuming you support his agenda — you’ll find a Clinton administration much, much closer to what you’d get with Sanders than you would with a Republican president.
In the zero-sum world of our presidential elections — all else being equal — a vote withheld for the Democrat is equivalent to a vote cast for the Republican.
To not vote for anyone including Clinton counts as much as someone else’s vote for Trump or Cruz or Rubio (whoever is the nominee).
I’ll support the Dem nominee whether it’s Sanders or Clinton. I’m old enough to know that the perfect candidate doesn’t exist and as Al Gore has said, “Elections matter.”
FTR. I’m not a Republican. I am a Sanders supporter. Disagree that Hillary and Republicans will deliver results that differ much on matters of economics and war. My “withheld” vote just cancels out another vote, or non-vote. (Oh, wait. Are we talking about eligible voters, registered votere, or likely voters? Because then, of course…oh, wait. You still don’t get to decide what it means.) Elections matter; political parties don’t.
Well youngster, come and join us old white blue collar workers. Maybe we can form a new party, one that was Progressive like the Democrats were 1932-1968.
Maybe we can form a new party, one that was Progressive like the Democrats were 1932-1968
Maybe you can find room for gentleman like this as we are kicked out.
Before H.A. Goodman wrote all those pieces over the last month about how he’s not going to vote if Sanders doesn’t win, he wrote this: “I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m Voting for Rand Paul in 2016”.
Betcha if I perused op-eds in German newspapers in the 1920’s and 1930’s I’d find some columns not too much different than Ryan’s.
(Would be slow going since I can’t read German.)
Really over the top. If you won’t vote for Hillary, you’re a Nazi. Come on!
Not particularly hyperbolic — although you’re misstating the argument in any case, as no one was accusing anyone of being a Nazi for not voting for Clinton — as we are in an environment whereby the leading front runner of the Republican Party is a fascist (or at minimum leading fascist supporters) who just today said he would bar all Muslims from entering the country, especially considering the Nazis came to power because of similar dynamics of splitting the left vote during a time of economic inequality and depression.
People who think it would be a good idea to sink the Democratic candidate so we can end up with such a Republican disaster folks would finally wake up: (1) fail to appreciate how deeply people can sleep, especially with soporific provided by Fox News; and (2) are apparently secure enough financially that it doesn’t occur to them even to consider the suffering that would result from such a scenario.
IMO.
At the risk of employing an overused trope, this translates to:
Republicans win
??????
Progressives win!
The author asserts that the damage done by an administration headed by next year’s Republican nominee will not be irreversible. Tell that to the dead in Iraq.
Also:
Sure. Last time, it only took a worldwide economic depression to make that happen. No serious harm came of that, did it?
Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. So, you know, there’s that to consider when thinking about voting for her for president.
So we’re going with the “No difference between the Democrat and the Republican” argument? Again?
She’s similar to Republicans in long-held policies of economics and war. Then as now. Yes, again. She loves Simpson-Bowles, just like Bill does. She’ll be cutting Social Security and Medicare, to save it, of course, just like Republicans. Again and again, the list goes on and on.
I agree with that. Hillary is not trustworthy. I am not yet ready to give it up to the republicans but she is not an inspiring leader.
Hillary’s running on broadening Social Security benefits, and raising the cap on FICA payroll taxes to finance it. She’s also running on preserving Medicare and allowing the government to bargain down the prices on Medicare Part D pharmaceuticals:
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare
No cuts to the program at all. No reasonable parsing of words can create evidence that Hillary is considering cutting these benefits; much the opposite.
The subject of this thread assured me that the comments would be entertaining in their excursions away from factual information and deep indulgences of feelings that Hillary desperately wants to do this and that bad thing. I was planning on just lurking and letting it all go. But, really, this frothy bullshit gives us Sanders supporters a bad name.
We can point out how Sanders’ proposals on Social Security and Medicare are superior to Hillary’s; that is true. It is not true, and it is not defensible, to claim Hillary wants to cut the programs.
Clinton is nowhere on record promising not to cut social security benefits. She goes on at length promising to oppose Republican efforts to privatize it, and suggests she may recalculate to benefit some at disadvantage by the current system. But there’s no promise not to reduce benefits generally, as Simpson-Bowles proposed. Her Clintonesque “plan” is cloaked in qualifiers and small print. So, her defenders may interpret it anyway they want, but there is no clear, unequivocal pledge not to reduce benefits.
Sanders has clearly promised to work toward an across-the-board raise of benefits for all retirees by taxing higher incomes. Likewise, his clear call for single payer, Medicare for all, is a simple, direct solution to the mess of the ACA that Hillary continues to endorse.
All of Clinton’s policy prescriptions are declared this way. With plenty of wiggle-room, and a clear intention to distract, obfuscate, and ultimately make it impossible to know, much less trust, what she will do if elected.
maybe you didn’t actually read the link provided, so I’ll post it again
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare
Read it. Comprehended it. It doesn’t say what you say it says. Surely doesn’t say she won’t be cutting social security benefits or vetoing any plan Republicans send her way that includes such a provision. Did I miss the part where she said clearly that she won’t be cutting benefits? You know, if she’d come out and say she planned to increase benefits across the board, there wouldn’t be any confusion reading her plan, but she hasn’t said that either.
Hey, you know what? You go back and read it again. Make sure you’re not reading more into it than what it actually says.
Neal, your case could persuade if there there were qualifiers or small print in this campaign plank of Hillary’s. There are none, however. None.
It’s a mystery to me why we can’t just trumpet something which IS factual: Bernie’s proposals for Social Security and Medicare are superior to Hillary’s. It weakens our case when we just make things up. We need to persuade a lot of Hillary supporters very quickly to switch their support; they won’t listen to us when positions of the candidate they currently support are represented in such bad faith.
Tricky business, to be sure, persuading Hillary voters that are pretty much convinced no one else is running for the Democratic nomination. And as we see with Republicans, lying is a pretty good strategy, one Hillary Clinton (like most Clintonites) have refined to an art form. Politics.
It’s important to persist in pointing out Mrs. Clinton’s distractions, lack of clarity, and ever-shifting stands on issues. Goes to the question of trust. Most voters don’t trust her; so when they finally do hear that there’s an alternative, it’s important that the vacuousness of her proposals is in evidence. And, perhaps more importantly, it’s important to persistently point out the addled thinking and self-serving motives of those that echo the lies implicit in her policy prescriptions. They’re not to be trusted either.
If Kerry had won in 2004, the 2007 financial crisis was on track to happen anyway, and the Democratic Party wasn’t able to get a Congressional majority between 2004 and 2008 then we would’ve had a Republican President for the past 7 years and a clean sweep of government for much of it. And the GOP probably would have a 45/55% Latino split like they did in 2004 rather than a 25/75% like they do now. And you can’t even go ‘oh, what about the USSC?’ because Bush’s two USSC replacements came for 2004-2008 and Obama’s was 2008-2012. And you can bet your sweep bippy that Kennedy and Scalia would retire if a Republican was the President for 2012-2016.
Just something to think about. I’m not saying that the Democratic Party should take a dive for 2016 because predicting negative black swans is by its very nature impossible — I’m just saying that Pyrrhic victories are a very real thing.
It’s clearly a false flag operation built by America Rising and paid for the Koch brothers.
Either that or these Salon writers are the stupidest “progressives” any of us has ever met.
Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog has an excellent rebuttal to this nonsense:
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-more-serious-rebuttal-than-salons.html
just no.
To all the pie-in-the-sky liberals that would sooner throw their vote away than vote for Clinton, I would have a modicum of respect for you if you were actually participating in forming a viable 3rd party that could compete against the Democratic party. I doubt you are though.
You are throwing your vote to the GOP and wishing for more pain on your fellow countrymen than they deserve. Selfish, arrogant . . . .you really do define the liberal elite that the GOP despise. You live in an academic bubble that most of us (fortunately) want no part of.
Voting for the Democratic Party nominee because I live in reality, don’t believe I have all the answers, and I have more compassion for my countrymen than you do.
Election night 1968 — all I said over and over again was, “How will we ever survive four years of Nixon?” (Clearly not prescient enough to imagine that he would win a second term.)
The DEM Party has been beating up on the DFHs ever since then even though most vote and most have held their noses and voted DEM since 1976. Every four years it’s the same damn thing from the Party elites: It’s the Supreme Court, stupid. Ya want to elect a wretched Republican — are you crazy or stupid? And it’s been “the most important election of our time” since I cast my first presidential election ballot in 1972.
Can someone remind me again what the difference was between Bill Clinton and GHWB? Oh well, we’re still free to burn the US flag if we so choose. We don’t. Instead we plaster the g-d flag on our lapels, cars, etc. as a talisman for something or other. If forced to choose between the right to burn a flag or NAFTA and welfare, telecom, financial institution and commodity trading reforms, I would have given up the flag burning right.
As someone above noted, over the decades fewer people have often found no reason to vote (equal to or exceeding 60% in 2004 and 2008 for the first times) since 1968. The GOP fantasy is that there remain hordes of racist, Xtrian fundamentalists for them to extract from the non-voting pool. If true, Cruz should get all of them and make it impossible for a DEM banking on the Obama coalition to win. For the simple reason that turning a non-voter into a voter requires offering something in the guise of someone that non-voters want to vote FOR. “Fear” only turns out the usual party regulars and those that have the habit of voting, either personally or by family tradition.
Is the US electorate really 50/50 +/-5 or is that an artifact of the principles/values/personalities of those that secure the nominations? Or are we perpetually dissatisfied with government because it has become a muddle offering unacceptable solutions in search of authentic problems? Sure would be nice if the national electorate was given a clear and authentic choice so those questions could be answered.
For those that are aghast at the strategic proposition that lefties withhold their vote if Clinton is the nominee, it’s the one thing that hasn’t been tried. (Gore won in 2000 in spite of running a very poor campaign against a doofus of an opponent. The selection was made by SCOTUS and dare we look at who confirmed those justices?) If lefties had done to the DEM Party what the DEM Party elites did to McGovern, a permanent GOP majority would have reigned since then. That might not have been as bad as what we’ve gotten because then the GOP wouldn’t have had to continuously chase the religious-rightwing bigot voters. The consensus on reproductive freedom/choice could have held and elected DEMs would have had a reason to balk at “reforms” to the New Deal legislation that was instrumental in reducing income/wealth inequality instead of the increasing spiral regardless of the political party in office.
OTOH, the military nutcases on both side of the aisle could have launched an all out nuclear conflagration and we wouldn’t be sitting here trying to figure out seemingly intractable problems many of which Democrats have at least participated in creating.
Guess if my GE choice in 1972 had been Nixon or Goldwater, I would have voted for the lesser evil (and been deprived of the sheer pleasure of finally being old enough to vote against Nixon). At this time, I don’t see any reason to speculate that the DEM party would learn anything other than more loathing of the left if lefties don’t vote for Clinton. If lefties vote for Clinton and she loses, we’ll still get blamed by the DEM PTB for not being sufficiently enthusiastic for someone we find unacceptable. If we vote and she wins, all the credit will go to the awesome power of the Clintons and those that paid for the outcome (and partisan DEMs will begin dreaming of a Chelsea Presidency); sequels don’t vary much except they’re rarely as good as the original.
Wow, so you endorse a Cruz, Rubio, or Trump presidency because Hillary’s not liberal enough?
Stop being so simplistic and read what is written. I’m sick of rigid partisan Democrats always accusing those that have no doubts that we can do much better for “the people” if we stopped accepting whatever corporate bought and paid for DEM nominee that hoodwinks the un or under-informed DEMs and is shoved down the throats for informed DEMs as “the lesser evil.”
Those like you have no difficulty perceiving the lies and manipulations by GOP candidates, but seem totally forgiving and/or blind to the same thing being done by DEM candidates. Well, unless you’re a corporate Republican not into the draconian GOP social policies, racism, and religious claptrap.
Tom Watson is Clinton’s biggest fan on this blog, I’d say, and usually comes out of the woodwork if there is to be a discussion about her and her specifically. It’s kind of annoying.
I mean…
I may be, but out of the woodwork?
Hardly about Hillary per se anyway. In 2008, I backed a candidate who was a bit more liberal on domestic policy than the nominee – but jeesh, I have very happily switched when she lost.
Cannot understand why that would not be the case next year. It’s not simplistic either – either a Democrat will win, or a Republican (and look at those fascists) will. It’s an A/B test about what you believe in. These Salon piece from sophomore year poli sci class are just horrid.
At least Tom hangs around and makes comments. I’m trying to figure out why someone that has never made a comment or posted a diary pops up to liberally dispense troll ratings on comments that could be construed as criticisms or critiques of Clinton.
I’ve emailed Martin to let him know about maythirteenth. Playing the ratings system is a time-honored tradition on blogs, and I never thought it was destructive. DailyKos did ten years ago and in the process turned themselves into the Discovery Channel of leftie blogs. Pleasant enough, I suppose, if that’s your mood, but rigged, so no longer credible as a political blog. Ratings here are problematic in that they go from 4 Excellent to 3 Good to 2 Warning! to 1 Troll to none. Mixing quality rankings in with subversive identifiers makes it kind of meaningless except in the way it sorts posts if user chooses to sort by rankings (as I do). On this “Serious Question” post though about not voting for Clinton, it’s bound to be at least a little silly. And what does “Good” mean anyway. To me it means “good enough,” meaning not offensive but otherwise mostly just an opinion. It’s not good though, that some of the really insightful, illuminating, inspiring posts by the best thinkers and writers here can get down-ranked by hackers.
Thanks.
In general we’re polite here — giving a 4 to a comment one likes or agrees with and passing on rating other comments. Have no doubt that a true troll would quickly earn the appropriate ratings. That’s about as good as it gets with a rating system that does no more than sum the total of the ratings.
Some sites split that into “up” and “down” with the totals of each displayed. Doesn’t seem to add anything and can also be abused.
A more sophisticated rating system then becomes too complex for users. I’ve often thought that a “yes,” “I agree,” or “close enough” button with no comment attached would be helpful in eliminating all the comments that say no more than that and clutter threads to no purpose. However, a “yes, etc.” rating of a comment wouldn’t discriminate between “good” and “excellent — must read” comments that often merit responses along with the big tip. A “disagree” rating wouldn’t be useful — if one disagrees, say so in a response comment with the rule that the response should be thought and fact based to encourage dialogue/discussion and not bullying. So, overall, troll or excellent (even if it’s merely good enough to be serviceable, is about as good as it gets without being clunky.
(Based on the resident hacker’s appearances and ratings, wouldn’t be surprised if she/he is employed to protect “DLC” pols and supporters.)
Disagree that the proposition of not voting for Clinton is silly. Seems like a worthwhile “what if” to discuss. Apparently too threatening for most contributors here who seem to have overlearned a lesson from the 2000 election, but that “lesson” isn’t even fact-based. Team Jeb!, “stuffed” the FL ballot boxes in three identifiable ways and that added, by my calculations, something like a 100,000 vote margin for GWB. (Jeb! wasn’t even competent at fixing that election and that was with the unanticipated serendipitous gift of the butterfly ballot.) But instead of screaming at team Jeb! and SCOTUS, DEM partisans blame Nader voters. That’s standard for DEM partisans — when “fear” fails to produce a win, blame the DFHs. Never ever question why the DEM candidate sucked and not getting too close to addressing the issue of why elections are so easy to rig.
Did anyone here touch on the major flaw in the reasoning of the person proposing not voting for Clinton? IMO the list of potential outcomes was incomplete and most were more like wishful thinking than well calculated as to probability.
I always value your opinions even when I disagree. Same with Booman’s opinions.
Would dearly like to see a diary expanding this.
Getting further off track, but I’d like a check box on each comment that just means I’ve read it, a quick way to identify as a “no comment / no reply” message that I’ve read. These could be counted and the totals posted with the comments as well, which would be useful. But it gets more complicated like you say.
whinging that maythirteenth’s opinion of your opinion is “unfair” impresses me even less.
Seriously, stop troll rating people because they disagree with you, it’s not cool.
Your presumption in telling me why I rate a comment the way I do is noted.
Shall we go for it?
Whatever it is you want to go for Ma’am, if it’s my permission that’s holding you back, consider yourself unheld.
maythirteenth, down-rating a comment is traditionally reserved for bad faith contributions. You’re essentially saying, “no one should read this.” It isn’t how we like to handle honest disagreements, which as I’m sure you’ve noted, we have plenty of. To quote the informal user’s guide:
This isn’t new – I’ve been around for about eight years, and some of these commenters have been around longer!
I identified you as a hacker, which, until now, that you’ve posted, is what you were.
I said that I think playing ratings on blogs is a time honored tradition. As others here have described more clearly, just troll rating a lot of comments because you disagree is bad form. I disagree with troll rating more generally than others. It almost never seems appropriate. At best, it’s imprecise, confusing. I don’t really understand what it means. (Short and funny looking? Fishing? General silliness?)
Anyway, go for it if that’s your deal. Your handle may not last long since you can get banned, so, not good for your brand if you care about that. But go nuts.
Glad you’ve decided to post. I retract Hacker.
“…so you endorse a Cruz, Rubio, or Trump….”
There you go.
Well, I have a cop out. I live in a super red state. so heads you win, tails I lose.
Anyway, the prospects of a republican win are dire indeed. Start with Trump, et.al. — but mostly that dumb ass and Cruz —, the supreme court appointments (could be 5 or so over 8 years), the probability of more war with no end in sight, another serious economic crash and loss of benefits, economic and social and you begin to see the problem. And if Trump wins we could be living in the 1930s.
But honestly, vote for Hillary? That is a really tough one. I don’t know if things get better if she loses or not at some distant future but I damn sure know little good will come from her right wing “progressive” viewpoint.
But here’s the thing. We have reached a point of political stasis. It makes me wonder why the Koch brothers really care. Their people will control congress in any case and there will be little chance for even Bernie Sanders to get anything done. So maybe they prefer Hillary. She will give them whatever they really want anyway.
For us poor slobs in the mud and people who need help, forget about it. This world we live in doesn’t work for us. The only way to change it, is change it. If I lived in a Blue state, I would have to think a good deal more about the chance to get a better future than the DLC will ever bring me. And guess what. I detest that I perceive all the stars are aligned for her coronation. Even Chris Matthews and his comments.
End rant.
That’s an intriguing notion. Red-state lib-DEMs vote Green or leave the Presidential ballot line blank. Must vote or the withheld votes won’t register.
In 2008 Obama received 16 million votes in the “red states.” Only somewhat higher at 17 million in 2012 as a few blues went red. So, can the “left” shift enough votes to Green or withheld to make a serious and powerful point without jeopardizing Clinton’s GE win?
We can’t expect “red state DEMs” to do all the heavy lifting. Assume that we’re so generous that we don’t want to reduce Clinton’s chances for a victory in the 2008 blue states that went red in 2012 (although it’s a stretch to believe that she’ll carry IN or NC). It would be unrealistic to project more than 30% of 2008 red-state Dems could be persuaded to vote GRN or withhold; so, that would be 5.3 million votes that “disappear” from the DEM column. Obama only received 5 million more votes than Romney did. Ah, the nightmare of winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote.
To add some insurance in making the point with that outcome:
a) Encourage all 2012 Obama voters in blue and purple states to show up and vote for Clinton.
b) 2008 Obama voters that didn’t vote in 2012 in the following states, need to show up and vote GRN or withhold in 2016: CA, CT, IL, MI, NY, OR, PA.
c) Self-identified liberals/progressives in the above states that were eligible and didn’t vote in 2008 or 2012, show up and vote GRN or withhold.
d) Newly eligible voters, vote anybody but GOP.
Ahh yes, the beginning of a strategy. Unfortunately, we don’t yet know what the ground will look like for the GE. So if the electorate really begins to think the clown car is insane. Then Clinton wins easily. Otherwise, a tough race.
I had been thinking for some time now to leave the President line blank, since I really can’t stomach the likely candidate. But then I never thought of the Greens, mostly bc they never seem serious as they only appear infrequently and never start a real grass roots movement.
As it gets closer, it all bears further thought. That said, I can’t imagine a republican president.
Bookmark it for further consideration as the nominating process gets near to completion and the GE polling has more credibility. (Most people aren’t very good at imagining a contest between two as yet un-nominated candidates and how they would vote. For example, all the early polling on a GWB v. Gore GE had GWB solidly in the lead. But both of them weren’t all that well known to the general public at that time and so, people heard GWB v. Gore as GHWB v. Clinton. There’s some of that this time; although Clinton is already widely known. After two terms for either party in the WH, the general early impulse is “time for a change.” The impulse gives way to consideration of the actual candidates the closer we get to election day.
It’s unlikely that enough folks could be enlisted for such a strategy to make a difference. The author/Bernie supporter could instead devote all his energies toward the benefit of his chosen candidate.
We have to burn this fucking country down to the ground to save it, right?
“In order to save the village, it was necessary to destroy it.”
Now where have I heard that argument before? And how’d that work out for the village?
What’s funny to me is we all know that if Sanders loses, he will give a full-throated endorsement of Hillary and campaign for her. So if his supporters refuse to vote for Hillary in the general, then are they really his “supporters” are just a bunch of contrarians?