"Bernie" v Hillary

[Cosmocat]

"Bernie" being him, and what is the tentative early stages of a possible movement.

Bernie is about as close to the real deal as we have seen in politics in terms of just being who he is, honest, sharp and genuine.

Bernie is about as solid with the progressive thinking most here share as any major politician we have seen in about half a decade.

Bernie the movement's main problem is not Bernie himself, but the country. This post is an ATTEMPT to try to help some of his ardent supporters make the movement come to life. Some get this, some don't.

You do Bernie the candidate and Bernie the movement NO favors by slagging off on Hillary. Bernie the candidate knows this and leads by example on this point - 100 times a day he gets baited to take shots at Hillary. 100 times a day he deftly deflects the bait. He NEVER takes unsolicited shots at her.

You like Bernie because you are THINKING voters who have a general mindset and orientation toward thinking about others more than ourselves.

You are at best 10 percent of the voting public.

You can't elect Bernie alone.

The overwhelming majority of the voting public is not as thoughtful or are oriented differently. A great number of which repeatedly vote against their own best interests.

Like it not, this is politics, which means culling many of whom are not oriented as you are toward your candidate.

Hillary Clinton is NOT the devil. Yes, she is warmed over, and is a politician. But, as far as politicians go, she isn't bad, and from a policy and governance standpoint, minus what Bernie appears to be, would be about as good as it gets in terms of advancing the kind of things we would want to see.

As a democrat, I have spent the last quarter century being exposed to a relentless onslaught of repubilcan bullshit thrown at her. I tired of it in the fucking 90s, if I wanted to hear/read Hillary bashing I would post at one of the thousands of right wing hell hole websites.

I am not alone thinking like this - if the election were today she would easily win the democratic nomination, and likely win the presidency.

I am set in voting for Bernie, and will support him. But, I will absolutely support Hillary in the likelyhood that she wins the nomination.

As of today, there are a LOT more people like me, and people who are not familiar with Bernie who are comfortable with Hillary, than there are Bernie voters.

Just the way it is.

So, the question is, does it help Bernie to slag off on Hillary?

Bernie knows the answer to this question.

Do you?

Also, if you are complaining about Bernie not getting media attention now, I suspect you will be complaining even worse if/when Bernie starts getting more attention.

Sorry, but it won't be a breathless love affair. The media is republicans/corporate bought and sold, not even trying to hide it at this point. Such time as Bernie the movement/candidate starts to get wind, he will get the FULL media treatment, the treatment ANY democrat gets.

Joe Scarborough, "I am not saying he is a serial killer, but he looks a lot like Robert Durst."
Lackies, "GOOD POINT, JOE!"

The more Bernie the movement comes to life, the more it is going to get mucked up. Howard Dean was probably the closest comparison, and he had his political career ended by making a simple, genuine moment of emotion, something that SHOULD have been celebrated, frankly.

The enthusiasm and belief are part of the foundation to make a run at it. But, it is trying to win the preakness from the outside gate. Its a long shot.

And, like it or not, you need EVERY vote you can get your hands on.

[marym625]

1. I agree

I don't believe that we shouldn't show tthe difference between the two candidates. But I don't think pot shots are the way to go.

[Cosmocat]

7. There you go

[fredamae]

2. Well, I'm plowing forward

with Bernie. There is, in the Political World, still Light years before the Primary. I think no one making Any predictions based upon current events/numbers etc today...Knows What will happen in a year...

I think the masterfully injected "Fear of the Unknown" has Already fed the beast in DC long enough.

People are weary of the "Clinton/Bush, Bush/Clinton" White House relay races.....I know I'm Out.

I want the Change we were All welcoming, thoroughly discussed and Worked so Hard For during the First Obama campaign and I'm willing to Change My old "status quo blind support of the party" habits to get that.

The leadership in the Circa 1990's "New Conservative Dem Party" does not deserve my loyalty....they haven't Earned it.

[Cosmocat]

12. Fair enough

nm

[djean111]

3. You would be correct - except "slagging off on Hillary" (interesting phrase, that) is now defined as

being critical of anything at all about Hillary. And I think what we have here is what used to be jeered at as a GOP trick - accuse others of what you are doing, yourself. As is the "I am a huge supporter of Bernie, BUT" advice.

Sometimes I honestly feel that DU was supposed to kneel in one hundred percent fealty to Hillary, and some are quite put out that did not happen.

Thank you for your kind advice.

[marble falls]

4. The second paragraph especially.

[Cosmocat]

6. Practicing what you preach

"I think what we have here is what used to be jeered at as a GOP trick - accuse others of what you are doing, yourself. As is the "I am a huge supporter of Bernie, BUT" advice."

I didn't post that I was a "huge" supporter of Bernie.

I also did not post "critical of anything about Hillary."

I will cede to your skills in utilizing GOP tricks.

I was quite clear about a number of things, including:

I am voting for Bernie and will support him.

Hillary is not the devil.

I have had my ever loving fill of bullshit being thrown at Hillary and I will vote for and support her if she wins the nomination.

You are in fact correct in that there are a LOT of democrats and non lunatic republicans who have long envisioned Hillary as president.

Whether you like it not, there are LOT more people who are like me than there are that DEMOCRATS who think she is the devil.

It is what it is.

You can snark and be curt about it and put negativity to Bernie the movement that will hinder its ability to build its coalition, or you can accept that and find a positive way to PROMOTE Bernie.

Your choice.

[djean111]

9. Here's the thing - I have only posted about policies of Hillary's that I do not like.

I do not think Hillary is the devil, I think she is a Third Way triangulator who will slide the United States further to the right.

Bernie is promoted positively all over DU.

And if you cannot appreciate that I was speaking about a number of OPs like yours, and thus the "HUGE" thing, then I am sorry.
Noted, that you have had your ever-loving fill and all that, but this is primary season. Not everyone wants another Reagan Republican or whatever. You deal with that. I don't have to like some things - and neither do you, and neither of us gets to give orders to anyone else.

[Cosmocat]

11. You were speaking about my OP

"And if you cannot appreciate that I was speaking about a number of OPs like yours, and thus the "HUGE" thing, then I am sorry."

And I think what we have here is what used to be jeered at as a GOP trick - accuse others of what you are doing, yourself. As is the "I am a huge supporter of Bernie, BUT" advice.

The OP isn't some sly psudeorepublican subterfuge, and it wasn't an "order."

I repeat - as of today, there are a LOT more people who are comfortable with Hillary than those who know and are backing Bernie.

You can choose to alienate them by condescending what they currently know or find a way to bring them to Bernie.

As I posted YOUR CHOICE.

Your analysis of Hillary is not inaccurate. ie, "warmed over and a politician."

[JoePhilly]

8. The mistake some Bernie supporters here make is that they ...

... resort to exaggerated hyperbole, or worse, a rather shrill chastising tone targeting her supporters.

The effect is to obscure any actual, meaningful criticism they might be making.

Such attacks do nothing to get people who would happily vote for Hillary to switch to Bernie. What it will do is get tuned out.

Hillary supporters have heard hyperbolic and shrill attacks against Hillary for 2 decades. You will not get people who like Hillary to believe Bernie would beat any GOP challenger using those tactics.

The OP describes a math problem. To win the primary, Bernie needs Democrats who already like Hillary to decide (a) he would also beat any GOP candidate in the general, and only then will they be willing to decide (b) they prefer his policy positions to hers.

[JoePhilly]

5. Some think attacking Hillary will get her supporters to switch to Bernie.

They are wrong about that.

For most Dems ... issue #1 is NOT letting a Republican take the White House. Period.

If regular Dems don't BELIEVE that Bernie will absolutely beat any Republican, they won't even consider switching to him over Hillary.

Attacking Hillary does nothing to make dems who already think she would beat any GOP opponent, come to believe that Bernie would also beat any GOP opponent.

I get the sense they think dragging Hillary down somehow (or attacking her supporters) LIFTS Bernie up. It does not.

Most of them do not see the math problem you are describing.

[Cosmocat]

10. That's it in a nutshell

I am "most Dems" as you describe.

Willing to get behind Bernie in the primary, but seeing a LOT more to his "right" than to her "left."

[jeff47]

13. And a very large number of Clinton supporters think any negative comment is an attack.

I asked "What bills did Clinton introduce while Senator to combat things like the Hyde Amendment and to expand abortion access?".

That was, apparently, a right-wing attack and a totally unfair smear.

Also, any discussion about why she lost in 2008 is a smear.

Also, any discussion of her IWR vote is a purity test.

Also, any discussion of the TPP is a smear. Because despite being responsible for negotiating it during her time as SoS, she supposedly can not possibly know what is in the deal. But her time as SoS demonstrates she has a fantastic record.

Heck, I was banned from the HRC group for saying "If she wins the primary". In 2012.

I think the fastest way for Clinton supporters to see less attacks would be to start having a realistic view of what an attack is.

[George II]

14. In 2008, it was more the fact that Barack Obama won than Hillary Clinton lost.

[jeff47]

15. Not at all. Clinton lost as much as Obama won.

Clinton made mistakes in the 2008 primary, and Obama was able to exploit those mistakes.

For example, she stuck with "inevitable" as her campaign theme for WAY too long. After she came in 3rd in Iowa, that needed to go. But she stuck with it until Obama had a good-sized lead. When she finally did abandon it, she did far better than expected in later primaries. But it was too late.

Drop inevitability after Iowa (or even better, never run on it), and be the "less scripted" Clinton that won NH, and she wins 2008 no matter what Obama does.

(Culturally, we don't like "inevitable". Especially our side of the aisle. All our heroic epics are the one person/small group fighting against inevitable, and winning despite the long odds. Running as "inevitable" plays directly against that. Just to Goodwin myself, you're running as the Nazis against Indiana Jones.

Inevitable may have a role in keeping other candidates out of the race. But once they are in the race, inevitable is not a good strategy for beating them.)

[JoePhilly]

16. Strawmen won't win this war.

The only way you win this war is by convincing people who would happily vote for Hillary, that Bernie would also absolutely beat any GOP challenger.

Go find any thread on any issue you mention above, and you will find it packed with hyperbolic attacks, and all manner of smears against those who support her.

The right time to start building up some alternative to Hillary, was back in 2011, when many on this site spent their time demonizing Obama, calling for a primary from his left. Giant waste of time that was.

By not positioning some other alternative as a sure fire winner over any GOP 2016 candidate ... much of DU is now surprised that Hillary is the only candidate most Dems currently believe would absolutely win the General.

And attempts to tear her down do nothing to raise some one else up.

[jeff47]

17. Those were not strawmen, they're from my posting history.

But that's not the story you want to believe, so you are not going to do so.

By not positioning some other alternative as a sure fire winner over any GOP 2016 candidate ... much of DU is now surprised that Hillary is the only candidate most Dems currently believe would absolutely win the General.

You are not all Dems.

Clinton has failed in her only difficult election, the 2008 primary. 2000 was easy - her early Republican opponent got in legal trouble, and his replacement is to tea-bagger he could never win statewide in NY. 2006 was even easier. Yes, she polls ahead of everyone else, but she did in 2008 too. Then the campaign started.

Let the campaign go, and let her make her case. And the other candidates will make their cases. We should not be counting people out of the race until fall at the earliest. If your claims about Clinton are correct, you don't need anyone else to stop talking about Sanders, O'Malley or anyone else. You're claiming she's unstoppable, so it doesn't matter what anyone else says.

As for beating the Republican, you need to do a little electoral math. Right now, the Democratic nominee has 257 electoral votes from "safe" blue states. The Republican has 149 from "safe" red states. The Democratic nominee needs VA to win. That's it. They could also win with just OH. Or with CO and IA.

The Republican nominee needs all 10 swing states, and they have to turn a "blue" state. That's not going to happen without a major blunder on the part of the Democratic candidate. And that's why there are no "good" Republican candidates. The ones that can count to 270 know this is not going to go their way.

So yes, Sanders can win. So can O'Malley. Hell, Chafee could pull it off. They literally only have to campaign in one or two states.

Here's how a Republican scores the 2016 election, and he goes into depth on why several states are "blue" or "toss-up".