2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Very Dishonest Viability Arguement
The Very Dishonest Viability Argument
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
07 February 16
Every pro-Clinton nomination argument contains or is built around the viability argument. Expressed by an inner-child, it goes something like this: Bernie Sanders should stop causing trouble
Hillary Clinton is more electable
If Bernie Sanders doesnt stop it, he will open the door for the Republican nominee.
Or, to quote Clinton digital media strategist Peter Daou, With Bernie Sanders As Their Nominee, Democrats Can Kiss the Presidency Goodbye.
That is fundamentally dishonest, and patently anti-democratic.
But thats not the most insidious thing about the viability argument. What really makes the viability argument so toxic is that it undermines the all-important ideological debate.
What the viability promulgators are saying, in essence, is you cant afford an ideological debate, you have to hide your political perspective away, because if you dont the Republicans will gain control of the country.
That, folks, is fearmongering at its finest. What a theft, what a denial of the democratic process. The fact of the matter is that both candidates, Clinton and Sanders, are quite viable as their polling numbers and the results in Iowa clearly demonstrate.
Now is absolutely the time for a contest of ideas. This is it: this is the moment when the candidates viability must be put to the crucial and essential test. If one of these two candidates is more viable than the other, let them prove that now. The nominating process is designed, at its core, to be a forum for testing and proving the viability of the candidates and the veracity of their ideas.
If your voice matters, it matters now. If you believe your candidates ideas are stronger, carry that belief onto the playing field of ideas and accept the outcome with courage. Whatever you do, never allow the democratic process to be subverted.
The Specter of Ralph Nader and 2000
To truly drive the stake of fear into the heart of every Democrat you have only to wheel out the specter of Ralph Naders 2000 presidential run. Again, as it applies here, a categorically false and dishonest argument.
The truth is that Ralph Nader played a critical role in opening the door for George W. Bush in 2000. Certainly there were other major factors, but Nader absolutely had an impact. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2016 Democratic nominating process, and the people dragging Nader out now know it.
Sanders is not running and will not run a third party campaign. He has been clear, consistent, and direct on that point from the beginning. So the entire Nader campaign comparison dies right there.
If you are looking for a 2016 spoiler, look no further than Wall Street magnate and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Bloombergs threat, which is what it really amounts to, is that he will only run if Hillary Clinton does not win the nomination. Again, fear and intimidation as primary instruments of control. Further, Bloombergs apparent comfort with Clinton reinforces the notion that Clinton is influenced and accepted by Wall Streets financial elite. Its interesting to note that Clinton even went so far as to reassure her good friend that it would not be necessary for him to enter the race, because she would beat Sanders herself.
The Safe Bet Is the Democratic Process
Right now, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are engaged in a good, old-fashioned ideological duke-out. That is actually evidence of a pulse in American democracy. Say no to the fearmongers, no to the process manipulators, and let the candidates settle this on the playing field. The clear winners will be the democratic process and the voters.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35050-the-very-dishonest-viability-argument
H2O Man
(73,558 posts)Recommended. Thank you.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)vaseline over ideology. That's it in a nutshell.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)doing much better than Hillary in the general election have these guys missed?
And it's still early. Look at how far Bernie has come already. And because it's only people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and dorks like us on DU who are paying very much attention at this point, for the rest of the country he's still mostly Bernie who? Give him more time. Give him the national state -- which if the Main Stream Media were actually doing their job he'd have had by now. So many people, after listening to him essentially go: OMG! Yes! This is the candidate I've been waiting for!
daleanime
(17,796 posts)they just refuse to acknowledge them. Because if they do admit that Bernie is just as 'viable' one of the few reasons they have for supporting Hillary disappears.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Thank you.
I keep on thinking other people are as grounded in reality as I am, and I keep on being surprised every time I learn that's not true.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)by so many people within the comfortable system, while Bernie Sanders alone tells truths that must be told, is the harshest indictment of this country that I can remember.
Catch2.2
(629 posts)about Obama?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Every metric points to Bernie being the MUCH stronger candidate.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And also the newest one:
"Just as important as winning this election, there is the point of keeping the Democratic Party together. Whether you support Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, your main thought should be for the Party's survival." (The LA Times had an editorial to this effect last week.)