Compared to the guy who openly talks about his history of buying politicians?
I am not trying to start a fight, but even if you claim to be a Sanders supporter, your post definitely comes off as a bit patronizing to many other Sanders supporters. It sounds like you are basically stating "well, Bernie fought well and hard, but now that he is out we have to get behind Hillary because Trump would be horrible! Don't worry, she's just like Bernie on many important issues!" Here's the thing, Bernie probably had the most diverse supporters in terms of their political views. Some include libertarians who are drawn to his positions on privacy, foreign policy, and the war on drugs. You seem to view Sanders as merely a more liberal candidate than Clinton and prefer some of his domestic policies (ie, full single payer vs the ACA). It's understandable that such supporters will unquestionably prefer Clinton with him out. That's fine and all, but please don't project your preferences onto others. The other key group of Sanders supporters you seem to be ignoring are among those who prioritize the issues of fixing our corrupt political system. The pertinent issues for this group of people include increasing voter participation and keeping money out of politics. On these issues, Clinton has a terrible record which makes it difficult for some Sanders supporters to even consider voting for her. Many of us consider her to be the poster child of these particular issues. Although she claims to not be a "natural politician", her flagrant flip flopping and refusal to adapt some positions that should be no-brainers for liberals at this point (single payer health-care and revenue neutral carbon tax) are undoubtedly influenced by her wealthy campaign contributors and lobbyists. She's as typical of a politician as you can get. Nobody with a brain expects her to legitimately move further to the left once she takes office. It's just a fantasy that many of us will have to reconcile with in order to dissuade ourselves from considering Trump.
I perfectly understand the point about money in politics and agree it a key piece of the Sanders campaign.
But do you really understand how money actually influences the mainstream political positions of both parties? Based on the rest of your post, I am not so sure. See my responses below.
I am not forgetting anything and actually agree that his campaign was "transformative". But that's precisely why we as voters must start holding every political candidate to that same standard, including Clinton and Trump.
Is this supposed to be a joke? Because I am not laughing. Are you taking her claim that she will undo Citizens United as evidence of such? In reality the issue of money in politics has been around long before the Citizens United decision, it is just a small piece of a very large set of reforms needed to combat the issue. If she and the democratic party were truly committed to the cause of getting money out of politics, then their record must prove such. Yet, they refuse to adapt many of Bernie's stances on some incredibly important domestic issues. For example, why aren't they willing to put medicare for all and a revenue neutral carbon tax on their platform? Again, these are very mainstream positions in other industrialized countries. Or better yet, on the former issue, why do you think Clinton once supported it, but switched her position on it after becoming a senator? Why won't she release her paid speech transcripts worth $225,000 each despite claiming she will be even tougher on Wall Street than Sanders? And after Sanders out-raised her campaign with small donations, why does she continue to fund her campaign through expensive fundraisers with the top 1%, including from Republicans? I could go on and on but my point is that she hasn't walked the walk. In addendum to what I said previously, this is exactly why she and Trump should be held to higher standards.
And once again you are missing the point of his revolution. Trump is nothing more than a bigger roadblock than Clinton since his presidency would potentially give the GOP control of all the major branches of government which would be a disaster for progressive policies. Despite what he may say I am sure he endorsed Clinton for this exact reason since again her record is horrendous when it comes to money in politics, but enough of his supporters will need to come around and vote for her to prevent a Trump victory. Again, you are just deluding yourself and others if you think we should vote Clinton as a great progressive candidate. To us she doesn't even qualify as a progressive candidate based on her record and even current positions on some key issues. I have said this over and over again, and I'll say it again. We are voting for Clinton because she is the lesser of the two evils, plain and simple.
True, Obama's base level of party unity was lower at the start. But honestly the 2008 primary was mainly about identity politics, so Hillary's endorsement of Obama probably held a lot more weight than that of Sanders endorsing her. Personally I don't think a large chunk of the remaining Sanders supporters will be swayed by just an endorsement based on everything I have just said, but I could be wrong. I'll wait and see on that.
It's a complicated topic, but I believe myself suitably alert to how special interest groups, private industry, and a host of lobbying activities both buy politicians and mold public discourse through communication and advertising (which affects citizens' ability to realize/defend their own interests)-- that at every turn they mold the wording of policy and public discourse to their interest, and basically pervert government and market away from catering to the needs of communities and individuals. Not only is there the issue of citizens United, but we have not regulated, and allowed the birth of a broad range of organizations dedicated to moving money, eliminating transparency, and making and deploying a wide range of powerful reach and target political ads and messaging creative.
Sure, but you have to look at the candidates that we have now, that have come through the politics and industry that are themselves the problems.
Uh, I agree with everything you had to say, and nowhere did I say she was a great progressive candidate.
I agree here too. I'm not sure Bernie's endorsement will have a big impact, but I personally foresee his supporters backing Clinton in the long run regardless of his endorsement.
Okay, you're right that the voting "restrictions" did affect Clinton as well. Of course, otherwise, it'd look TOO suspicious to ignore, perhaps even by our corporate media. But it doesn't change the fact that it did happen, and the margin of errors affected Sanders a lot more, if not solely.
Becerra or Perez, or less likely Castro. I'd be quite surprised if she went with anyone who isn't Latino quite honestly. It's too smart of an electoral play. Especially in this election cycle... and it could potentially have massive down ticket effects too.
Yes I get that you clearly understand the basics of the problem. Yet, you went on to say previously that Clinton and the Democratic party support getting money out of politics as a mainstream position. You still haven't addressed this discrepancy at all in your post, and that is what I am calling you out on.
That's fine and all. Just don't expect Sanders supporters that vote for her to back her for any reason beyond preventing Trump from winning. The real energy has to be focused at lower levels of government in the meantime.
The main argument of your post was "Bernie supporters should back Hillary because they have similar positions on most issues". And my response to that is, on the most important, most critical issues, Clinton and mainstream Democrats fall short. How many times do I need to state this? It's nothing more than voting for the lesser of the two evils since Trump has some terrible policy ideas. But that's just my opinion. Some might back him because he opposes the TPP which is a major thing Democrats are unwilling to commit to. Again, it's just an agonizing lesser of the two evils vote. People will pick based on which policies are most important to them that either Clinton or Trump have similar positions to Sanders on. Because they see her as a corrupt politician, you can't reasonably expect Sanders supporters to easily fall in line with voting for her when ending political corruption was the cornerstone of his campaign.
The unfairness was mainly during the primary season, but I'd rather not get into this. If you honestly think mainstream media outlets, many of which were owned by individuals who have contributed to Clinton's campaign, were not biased in her favor, then I don't know what else to tell you. The other main issue is not simply a matter of bias in favor of one candidate, but the fact that the MSM treats politics like a soap opera or drama rather than as an important conversation of issues. But I am starting to go on a tangent here, so I will save that discussion for another time.
More like you are cherry picking cases of voter suppression that effect Clinton supporters while ignoring the ones that I and others in this thread have already posted numerous times. And the key thing is the latter cases can't be pinned on rules set by Republicans (for example, party affiliation changes in closed primaries). So please stop playing the blame game and acknowledge every piece of evidence.
Nice job with your cherry picking again. It's like you ignored my post (maybe you did because you weren't responding to me specifically, but I digress). Your point is that Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats. I agree since pro-corporate policies are more inline with the right's unyielding support of capitalism. But here's the problem: Saying the Republicans are worse doesn't mean the Democrats are not corrupt. They might not be raging climate change deniers in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, but they take money from lobbyists and CEO's who give it to them in hopes that they can continue to influence key policies in their favor. Why do they refuse to back a universal, single payer system that is standard in other countries? Because they take money from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Why did Clinton support the Iraq war? It wouldn't have anything to do with the vast amounts of money she has receives from defense contractors, would it. And finally, despite claiming that she will be tougher on Wall St. than Sanders, why is it that, in addition to her expensive speeches, that she won't support reinstating Glass Stegall? Why won't the democratic party put opposing the TPP on their platform? Why is Bernie the only candidate who is not staunchly pro-Israel despite being Jewish himself? And how about supporting a carbon tax and ending fracking?
Because it would be unwise to piss of voters who put her in office in the first place? And that is IF we vote for her, and if we do, we're going to make sure she holds her promises, or and she refuses, we'll find ways to make life miserable for her. We're already pissed off for numerous reasons, and if she thinks that we're going to vote for her, and then go laissez faire on her, she has another thing coming. We can start massive protests on Twitter and Facebook if we have to. It might take time, money, and coordination, but by the time this election season is over, we'll be determined enough to make it happen.
It's a tall order, but it's not impossible. Plus, there is the fact that the poll workers in California weren't properly trained, and left to their own devices, and it is quite likely this is how it was nationwide. It could have happened in every primary Sanders "lost" for all we know, or enough so that the 500 super-delegates would be the only thing giving Clinton the advantage. There is also the fact that every loss Sanders had was a blow to moral for those who supported him, and by the time he lost New York, many Sanders supporters might have figured that it was over, and there was no point in voting for in the Primaries. And then there are Independents who didn't have a voice in the matter. Every vote counts, and all these factors together might have worked together to give Clinton the nomination.
You saw what the numbers were right? Something like that would have exploded since not only would bernie supporters jump on it, but so would every non hillary supporter. The right points out every instance of voter fraud and is shut down because most on the left dismiss it until it hinders them, so every conservative outlet would have jumped onto the voter fraud.
It might yet. I've heard at least one lawsuit has been filed, and we don't know how far it goes. Like I said, don't underestimate the effects that a few less delegates might have in one state, or a few landslides in strategic states like California and New York might have had.
