08-08-2016, 04:27 PM
Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
So, as usual - we're faced with the question: how many Sanders supporters are ideological twits who will throw away their vote in the voting booth?
That question could be interpreted to imply that if a Sanders supporter doesn't support Clinton in the general election, then they are ideological twits who will throw away their vote. If that is what you meant to imply then I think that is an oversimplification. Is feeling that the soft corruption of money in politics is the keystone issue that needs to be addressed being realistic or ideological?
And, as I alluded to in a response to Lemon Drop, I think that it's important to acknowledge that some Sanders supporters who won't support Clinton may value different things more highly than those who do choose to support Clinton. How do we assess differences in value priorities when deciding what is ideological and what is not?
Feeling that the soft corruption of money in politics is a keystone issue that needs to be addressed is a chiefly practical matter, not an ideological one. If Bernie supporters want to address this matter practically, they need to ask which of the candidates would create a greater opening for reform: the one who publicly espouses legislation that limits money in politics and promises to "repeal Citizens United" (despite the impossibility of doing so as the executive) through SCotUS appointments, or the one who just selected a panel of millionaires and billionaires to his economic advising team. It's a simple enough evaluation.
Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
Also, how many of these voters would ever have voted for a major party candidate, and were only supporting Bernie as an anti-party move?
I expect the votes Clinton is supposedly 'losing' are ones she (or a GOP nominee) never had any chance of winning anyway, so it's a wash. These people were never going to vote Clinton or Trump. I would guess that most of them don't regularly vote.
I think that is generally true - although I'm not sure about the "don't regularly vote" part; it may be true but I'd like to see some empirical evidence on the matter.
I think that a very small number of Sanders supporters really are Bernie or busters. No Bernie means then bust the system. They may vote for Trump in hopes that he will win and be such a screw-up as president that "the system" will break down and give them the opening they think they need (the naive ones probably actually believe that their message will prevail when the chaos hits and the realistic ones who want such a break down are probably at least quasi-anarchists).
I also think a very small number of Sanders supporters have gotten caught up in a "cult of personality" thing where not supporting Clinton is really mostly about hurt feelings more than policy considerations.
Any Bernie supporters who think that Trump "will win and be such a screw-up as president that 'the system' will break down" are, frankly, idiots with no appreciation of history or reality. This does not detract, however, from the fact that a Trump presidency could be enormously harmful to the Republic and its citizens.
I think that responsible participants in democracy are both pragmatic voters and aspirational citizens who do more than vote. Joining nonpartisan civic engagement groups that do good and promote positive values (even those outside the political mainstream) is a great way to be a Bernie supporter. There was a time when universal primary education was a radical idea in this country. When women having the vote was seen as a dangerous proposition that could bring down the nation. When integrating schools was seen as a form of cultural genocide. Keep working, Bernie Bros - but in the interim, stop trashing Hillary and give her your vote.