Jump to content

US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

Let's start it off with another article on how virtually everyone is turning on Sanders at this point.

Quote

 

Much of the warm, fuzzy sentiment was based on a perception of Sanders as a non-politician, a man so wedded to his ideals that he would not besmirch them by engaging in petty politics. Democrats of all stripes lauded Sanders in October when he went out of his way to keep the debate focus on policy and take an enticing line of attack off the table, thundering, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”

But in the months that followed, the Sanders campaign adopted an increasingly harder edge, gradually depriving him of angelic protections. Now, with only six states remaining on the primary calendar, the delegate math harder and harder to ignore, and the Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump short of insurmountable, partisan impulses on the left are kicking in, and patience for squabbles is wearing thin.


 

 

Sanders of course is being conciliatory and trying to mend fences and OWAIT NO

Quote

 

In a series of television interviews, Sanders remained defiant despite what he acknowledged was an uphill fight to overtake front-runner Clinton.

Clinton has said she already considers herself the de facto nominee and is increasingly turning her attention to Donald Trump, saying on Sunday that the rhetoric of the presumptive Republican nominee was dangerous.

Sanders told ABC's "This Week" program that Americans should not have to choose between "the lesser of two evils" in the Nov. 8 election.

Sanders said that if he won the White House, he would not reappoint U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chairwoman. He also endorsed law professor Tim Canova, who is challenging the Florida congresswoman in the August Democratic primary.

 

What I think is interesting is that the way Sanders is campaigning now and the way the system is turning is making it far less likely that he'll get anything at the convention. He's making it essentially impossible for his diehard supporters to save face and bend the knee. They won't have any other recourse but to oppose Clinton, because psychologically they've been told that she is evil and compromise is never a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I think people (you) put more into it, than there actually is.

Quote

In a series of television interviews, Sanders remained defiant despite what he acknowledged was an uphill fight to overtake front-runner Clinton.

Factually true. Clinton has not secured the nomination, yet. She is close, but she has not crossed the finish line, so the race is not officially over. Fact of the matter is, she is beating Sanders on votes, and is thus leading on delegates - and deseverdly so.

Quote

Sanders told ABC's "This Week" program that Americans should not have to choose between "the lesser of two evils" in the Nov. 8 election.

I would have used a different wording. But I thought that pretty much is the point the Clinton supporters (also on this board) make, that Clinton might not be perfect, but she is infinitely better than Trump. Which is true (at least imo), but again that is more like an argument to vote against Trump, and not an argument to vote for Clinton. If the point was to vote against Trump, the Democrats could also write a grizzly bear on top of the ticket (if the bear was not born in Canada, ofc). Reasons to vote for her are: her political record (if you like it, that should be enough) and her experience. 

Cue for Nestor with the unfavorability ratings for both candidates.

Quote

Sanders said that if he won the White House, he would not reappoint U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chairwoman. He also endorsed law professor Tim Canova, who is challenging the Florida congresswoman in the August Democratic primary.

I thought DWS as head of the DNC was/is one of the favorite targets for criticism for the state of the Democratic party, esp. from the left. I remember people here hoping for her to get defeated in the primary months ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Targeting DWS shouldn't surprise anyone given her statements and utter failure to do anything that has actually helped the party.

 

Also, it feels strange to me that Clinton supporters are trying to drag Sanders through the mud to try and gain those votes. It seems like an odd tactic to try and paint their candidate as some kind of evil villain and try to shift blame on him for not accomplishing something that is clearly to the benefit of Clinton.  She desperately needs those votes in the general, ratcheting up the rhetoric seems like an odd counter to one who is already on the ropes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aceluby said:

Also, it feels strange to me that Clinton supporters are trying to drag Sanders through the mud to try and gain those votes. It seems like an odd tactic to try and paint their candidate as some kind of evil villain and try to shift blame on him for not accomplishing something that is clearly to the benefit of Clinton.  She desperately needs those votes in the general, ratcheting up the rhetoric seems like an odd counter to one who is already on the ropes.

I don't know that it's a specific tactic that was agreed upon. I do think that it's probably defeating the outcome that is desired. Though I will say that it's hard to stay above the fray when Sanders continues to do actual attacks on Clinton. Clinton's campaign has basically been silent with respect to Sanders for over a month now, only saying that Clinton is the nominee (in the same way that Joffrey says he IS  the king), but Sanders continues to attack. 

What I am seeing isn't Sanders getting dragged through the mud by Clinton supporters - it's by erstwhile allies that have worked with him and support him. Harry Reid is one of his oldest friends and supporters and basically said to him directly that he fucked up. Slate, DailyKos, and Salon have all recently run articles about press that had been very friendly to Sanders in the past being disillusioned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I don't know that it's a specific tactic that was agreed upon. I do think that it's probably defeating the outcome that is desired. Though I will say that it's hard to stay above the fray when Sanders continues to do actual attacks on Clinton. Clinton's campaign has basically been silent with respect to Sanders for over a month now, only saying that Clinton is the nominee (in the same way that Joffrey says he IS  the king), but Sanders continues to attack. 

What I am seeing isn't Sanders getting dragged through the mud by Clinton supporters - it's by erstwhile allies that have worked with him and support him. Harry Reid is one of his oldest friends and supporters and basically said to him directly that he fucked up. Slate, DailyKos, and Salon have all recently run articles about press that had been very friendly to Sanders in the past being disillusioned. 

This from my perspective as well.

Personally speaking, I was quite fond of Bernie until a few weeks ago when he was realistically eliminated and instead of bowing out gracefully he escalated the conflict. I do not approve of divisive actions in the face of the hurricane on the horizon, Sanders has been determined to throw the doors and windows open to it and his strangely fanatical followers have taken his lead.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Let's start it off with another article on how virtually everyone is turning on Sanders at this point.

It's not so much "virtually everyone" as "virtually all Clinton supporters." Since the latter are overwhelmingly more likely to appear in the media (not to mention own the media), it looks like virtually everyone, but of course it is not -- otherwise Sanders wouldn't still be winning states. I can understand where the media turning on Sanders are coming from: his campaign has definitely outlived its usefulness to them. The moment Kasich dropped out and Trump became the presumptive nominee in truth, the Sanders campaign turned into a distraction and occasionally (e.g. when he wins a state) an embarrassment to the Democratic party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's not so much "virtually everyone" as "virtually all Clinton supporters." Since the latter are overwhelmingly more likely to appear in the media (not to mention own the media), it looks like virtually everyone, but of course it is not -- otherwise Sanders wouldn't still be winning states. I can understand where the media turning on Sanders are coming from: his campaign has definitely outlived its usefulness to them. The moment Kasich dropped out and Trump became the presumptive nominee in truth, the Sanders campaign turned into a distraction and occasionally (e.g. when he wins a state) an embarrassment to the Democratic party.

Except...it's not. As pointed out, the main sources above are ones that have been in the Sanders camp for the majority of the campaign. The main people who support Sanders at this point are some very left-wing sites (that seem to hate Clinton more than anything else) and Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Except...it's not. As pointed out, the main sources above are ones that have been in the Sanders camp for the majority of the campaign. The main people who support Sanders at this point are some very left-wing sites (that seem to hate Clinton more than anything else) and Trump. 

And a large minority of California voters....

Of course the Clinton campaign doesn't need to address anything directly as the presumptive nominee when, as you've clearly pointed out, the media and Democratic elite is willing to do that for them.  Should Sanders bow out?  Maybe.  Should he dial down the rhetoric?  Absolutely.  Are the media doing the DNC/Clinton any favors by ramping up the rhetoric?  Definitely not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Except...it's not. As pointed out, the main sources above are ones that have been in the Sanders camp for the majority of the campaign. The main people who support Sanders at this point are some very left-wing sites (that seem to hate Clinton more than anything else) and Trump. 

As I said, the Sanders candidacy has outlived its usefulness for the vast majority of Democrat-leaning sites. They were never truly on his side, at least not to the extent that they are willing to prioritize his campaign above inconveniencing Clinton.

31 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/how_trump_could_win.html

How Trump Could Win 

2
0
154

It’s a long shot. A very, very long shot.

There's an article on a similar theme on the Huffington Post which is somewhat less rigidly orthodox in its thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aceluby said:

Targeting DWS shouldn't surprise anyone given her statements and utter failure to do anything that has actually helped the party.

 

Also, it feels strange to me that Clinton supporters are trying to drag Sanders through the mud to try and gain those votes. It seems like an odd tactic to try and paint their candidate as some kind of evil villain and try to shift blame on him for not accomplishing something that is clearly to the benefit of Clinton.  She desperately needs those votes in the general, ratcheting up the rhetoric seems like an odd counter to one who is already on the ropes.

Yeah.  Sit down a shuddup all you Clinton supporters.  Questioning Sanders is off limits if you want our votes.  You sit there and take it when we lie about Clinton, or when Sanders flip-flops for political expediency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BloodRider said:

Yeah.  Sit down a shuddup all you Clinton supporters.  Questioning Sanders is off limits if you want our votes.  You sit there and take it when we lie about Clinton, or when Sanders flip-flops for political expediency.

Hey now. Sanders has never flip-flopped. He hates the superdelegates and wants them destroyed, and will rely on them heavily to nominate him so he can then destroy them. Or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Notone said:

I would have used a different wording. But I thought that pretty much is the point the Clinton supporters (also on this board) make, that Clinton might not be perfect, but she is infinitely better than Trump. Which is true (at least imo), but again that is more like an argument to vote against Trump, and not an argument to vote for Clinton. If the point was to vote against Trump, the Democrats could also write a grizzly bear on top of the ticket (if the bear was not born in Canada, ofc). Reasons to vote for her are: her political record (if you like it, that should be enough) and her experience. 

Except that the general election won't be Trump vs A Grizzly Bear. It will be Trump vs Clinton. Which means if you're not voting Clinton, you're helping Trump, and "lesser of the two evils" most certainly becomes relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders said that if he won the White House, he would not reappoint U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chairwoman. He also endorsed law professor Tim Canova, who is challenging the Florida congresswoman in the August Democratic primary.

How is this a bad thing? Party leaders come and go. And he's not obligated to support DWS in her primary.

 

11 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders told ABC's "This Week" program that Americans should not have to choose between "the lesser of two evils" in the Nov. 8 election.

This is reasonable. I don't see how any of this is, for a lack of a better term, scandalous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Except that the general election won't be Trump vs A Grizzly Bear. It will be Trump vs Clinton. Which means if you're not voting Clinton, you're helping Trump, and "lesser of the two evils" most certainly becomes relevant.

People keep bring up the "lesser evil", but in fact, when the choice is between acting in support of a lesser evil, acting in support of a greater evil or doing nothing, there's a pretty strong philosophical argument that the only ethical option is to do nothing. I can try to reconstruct a variant of the thought experiment adapted to this situation if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Notone said:

I would have used a different wording. But I thought that pretty much is the point the Clinton supporters (also on this board) make, that Clinton might not be perfect, but she is infinitely better than Trump. Which is true (at least imo), but again that is more like an argument to vote against Trump, and not an argument to vote for Clinton. If the point was to vote against Trump, the Democrats could also write a grizzly bear on top of the ticket (if the bear was not born in Canada, ofc). Reasons to vote for her are: her political record (if you like it, that should be enough) and her experience. 

Cue for Nestor with the unfavorability ratings for both candidates.

The wording is rather the important part here because "lesser of two evils" explictly implies Clinton is evil. Which is a position I think many would find both ridiculous and also not something you should be saying about the person who is basically guaranteed to win your party's primary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, aceluby said:

Also, it feels strange to me that Clinton supporters are trying to drag Sanders through the mud to try and gain those votes. It seems like an odd tactic to try and paint their candidate as some kind of evil villain and try to shift blame on him for not accomplishing something that is clearly to the benefit of Clinton.  She desperately needs those votes in the general, ratcheting up the rhetoric seems like an odd counter to one who is already on the ropes.

Sanders is dragging himself through the mud. Clinton is basically ignoring him. Almost everyone else is telling Sanders to stop because what he's up to is dumb and counterproductive.

There is really no other response to Sanders' increasingly desperate flailing as the primary closes out other then to tell him to stop with the mud-throwing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Altherion said:

People keep bring up the "lesser evil", but in fact, when the choice is between acting in support of a lesser evil, acting in support of a greater evil or doing nothing, there's a pretty strong philosophical argument that the only ethical option is to do nothing. I can try to reconstruct a variant of the thought experiment adapted to this situation if you like.

Doing nothing helps the Greater Evil, since one of these two will be the next President. If there was a None of the Above option, fine, but there isn't. You're dealing with the consequences of a FPP voting system.

This also works the other way. If you're a Republican who detests Trump but regards Clinton as Satanic, not voting simply helps your least favourite candidate - in this case Hillary, because you failed to vote for Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...