Will voters embrace Hillary Clinton’s realism over Bernie Sanders’ idealism?
Really Depressing
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
32 Comments. Leave new
Indeed, the Generalisssima embodies THE “Obumma legacy”: democrats can do Nothing in national governance … even with 255 House seats and 60 senate seats.”
«Will voters embrace Hillary Clinton’s realism over Bernie Sanders’ idealism?» Well, Ted, I don’t wish to emulate a certain member of the Clinton clan and avoid the nitty-gritty by appealing to definitions of the copula (pun intended), but still I’m a bit bemused by your use of the terms «realism» and »idealism». Mr Sanders, after all, has been running for public office in the United States since 1972, which ought, in my opinion, to have given him his realist chops. Ms Clinton, on the other hand, has exposed herself to the voters’ judgement on only one occasion, while the positions she has occupied, such as US Secretary of State, have carried no penalties (i e, for her own person, but, of course, dire consequences for the victims) for advocating extremely unrealistic policies. It is rather Ms Clinton, who is the «idealist» (with «ideals» that many, myself included, loathe) and Mr Sanders who is the «realist», who observes real problems, e g, the disastrous state of health care in the US, and proposes realist solutions, e g, a single-payer system, to them….
Henri
The likely facts are inescapable. Clinton can’t win the general election.
But say she does. What of the House and Senate? Under what fantasy does Clinton inspire such an outpouring of voters that she’s able to regain a House and Senate majority? Those sorts of changes only occur in large turnouts. Clinton will not get a large turnout.
Sanders’ voting block has a substantial number of people who will not vote if it is not for him. Even if only 5% sit out the election (and don’t tell me it will be that small), it will cost Clinton the election.
Clinton “winning” will be a four-year nightmare of stall, delay, retaliate. She should look into it and reconsider whether winning in the real, useful sense of the term is possible.
Now, now, alex_the_tired, we all know Ms Clinton is a «realist», because the corporate media tell us so (when it suits their purpose)….
Henri
Bernie will bow out after “Super Tuesday” and most of his supporters WILL vote for Hillary because Bernie will make a very persuasive case (he may even be selected as VP!) and especially if Trump becomes the Republican nominee. Trump’s insane rhetoric will become increasingly fascistic. Hillary will appeal to a broad “center” and she will be the next president of the U.$.A.
Prole:
1. I don’t think Sanders’ supporters will support Clinton. Sanders’ main selling point is his honesty and his free-from-scandal background. When it’s a choice of Hypocrite A or Hypocrite B, sure, the voters will switch over for the most part. This time, it’s Hypocrite (still won’t release the transcripts even though Sanders has released his — there were none so it was easy) against Non-hypocrite. Even if only 5% or 10% (I think it’ll be a lot more) stay away, that will finish Clinton in the election. There will be a couple of states where that knife-edge of an advantage will matter, and that will cost her the entire election.
2. Even if Clinton wins, she will not fire up the electorate for a sweep of the House and Senate. And there has to be a sweep of all three in order for ANYTHING to get done. The Republicans are showing, already, that when it comes to nuclear options, they’re willing to take them. A year with a 4-4 Supreme Court. It’s practically treason. Clinton will (if at all) squeak by with a slender victory, and ascend Her throne to find that the House and Senate are blocking every single thing she’s doing. The Supreme Court will swing to a moderate-heavy court with two liberals and four conservatives. And when Clinton is voted out after four disastrous years* — don’t worry, she’ll still have Goldman Sachs — the Republicans will get another 8-year presidency and the Court will become 6 conservatives and 3 moderates.
(*Assuming the Republicans don’t impeach her.)
I’ve said it before (a lot): There is no pathway that leads to a successful Hillary Clinton presidency. Not one. If Sanders doesn’t win, we are all well and truly screwed because Clinton’s owners on Wall Street already have the chores she’ll need to do ready for her as soon as she lifts her hand off the bible when she takes the Oath of Office.
Not to worry, alex_the_tired ; should Ms Clinton win the nomination and the election, she’s almost certain to start a major US shooting war with China which will render moot any plans any of us may have had for a post-2017 future. Stop worrying and learn to love the Bomb !…
Henri
Alex, you’re always such an optimist. 😀
I pretty much agree, though. If Hillary: four more years of obstructionism & witch hunts. Although Bernie wouldn’t ‘t fare much better as far as obstructionism. I sincerely doubt he’s got any skeletons in his closet, though.
I can’t see the GOP sorting themselves out by November. While one third of the idiots do support Trump, the other two-thirds find him repulsive. A few will vote the party line, as usual – but I can’t see enough of them voting for The Donald to award him the prize.
So what happens with congress? The majority of citizens want them to move on the Supreme Court. Obstructionism will hurt them more than help at this point. It’s always the swing voters that make the difference & they’ll be thoroughly disgusted with congress by then. They’ll vote for whatever dem is on the ticket.
Many of the party faithful will avoid the polls rather than vote for Trump, and that will hurt the GOP contenders even further.
If the GOPranos stall on the Supreme court seat, they could be facing a real liberal instead of the moderate O’bummer is sure to nominate, as well as having a minority in the Senate…
… then we’ll all ride our unicorns to candyland!
Worst case: Hillary crashes & burns along the way, and the fraidy-cats don’t vote for a :gasp: socialist, we get Trump. What’s he gonna do? Cause a big divide between rich and poor? Make us hated abroad? Ignore the infrastructure and global warming? That’s business as usual.
At least that will be amusing to watch. (From the safety of my new residence in Canada or New Zealand…)
CrazyH,
The thing about Sanders winning vs. Obama winning back in 2008 is this: Sanders is running a real-life revolution. And revolutionaries rarely are willing to wait to even the score once they’ve won.
If Sanders wins the presidency, he’ll tell people very simply: I’ve got the presidency. You’ve got the power. Today’s thing? Call your representatives. Demand that they pass my bill to pay for free-tuition to state colleges for all high school graduates. If you don’t, they’ll block everything I do.
Obama? First thing he did in office? Sign a proclamation that Jan. 20, 2009, was “reconciliation day.” Not “arrest the criminals who ruined the economy day.”
Alex,
My friend, you really need to complete your political education if you think that Bernie is leading a “real-life revolution!” This short article on CounterPunch might help:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/23/bernie-sanders-your-times-up/
Prolecenter – if you’re really stumping for Trump, at least have the honesty to say so. (& btw you misrepresented the article you referenced. No surprise there – intellectual dishonesty is your SOP.)
Those of us who are really interested in social & economic reform are voting for Bernie.
@Alex, yes, Bernie would at least try; and I believe that his in-office agenda would be the same one he champions on the campaign trail – unlike O’Bummer.
The interesting question is whether Duh Pipple would back him. I do like that scenario – the congresscritters who don’t support reform get voted out two years later. It could happen.
CrazyH, you are being more than reasonably unjust to prolecenter in claiming that he misrepresented the article to which he provided a link. Joshua Frank’s CounterPunch article closes with the following paragraph :
«Back to Bernie Sanders, who, like Dennis Kucinich before him, is willing to turn his back on the movement he helped spark under the guise of solidarity with Madam Hillary – Wall Street greed and income equality be damned. Here’s to hoping all those Sandernistas out there see Hillary for what she is and don’t fall victim to Bernie’s imminent plea for Democratic unity. Keep the battle raging over the real issues even after he waves his surrender flag.»
which is quite consistent with prolecenter’s summation above. And intimating that he is «stumping for Trump» is rather a low blow ; nothing he has posted here can legitimately be construed to indicate that he supports Herr Drumpf or his campaign….
I may be naive, but contrary to prolecenter, I still retain the hope that the race for US president in 2016 will in the end be between Messr Sanders and Drumpf. Many, including myself, have derided US presidential campaigns as offering voters a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, but a Sanders-Drumpf race would be something else entirely….
Henri
@henri – I stand by my statement, the primary thrust of the article is about handicapping the horse race, not the “revolution”
The quote you posted is in fact speculation on the part of the author. He’s claiming either prescience or telepathy. Rather than take the author’s musings at face value, you might instead take Bernie’s word on the subject.
If, OTOH, the author had dedicated most of the column to listing real examples of Bernie ‘turning his back’ then it would have some relationship to Trole’s statement.
> nothing he has posted here can legitimately be construed to indicate that he supports Herr Drumpf or his campaign….
Of course not – see “intellectual dishonesty.” Consider, he is constantly dissing Bernie – usually with specious arguments and outright lies – while out of the other end of his alimentary canal he is claiming to be in favor of social and economic reform. His actions are diametrically opposed to his stated goals.
He’s never said one nice word about Hillary that I’ve seen, but he has said a few nice ones about Trump. Nor have I ever seen him criticize Trump.
If it turns out to be Trump v. Sanders – then who benefits from Trole’s actions?
Shit. I fat-fingered the link. It should only consist of “Bernie’s word”
Henri, thanks for the support. It must be a strange world inside CrazyH’s head. I’ve never said any kind word about Trump. This is what I wrote above on this very thread:
“Trump’s insane rhetoric will become increasingly fascistic. Hillary will appeal to a broad “center” and she will be the next president of the U.$.A.”
> I’ve never said any kind word about Trump.
Nice red herring there. (Tee hee I said, “red”)
It’s far more interesting that you’ve never said any kind word about Bernie, seeing as how you misrepresent yourself as a socialist. I’m willing to bet that you’ve said far more negative things about Sanders on this site than you have about Trump. Say a hundred dollars to Ted’s defense fund the vs. the same to a charity of your choice? A larger amount? I know shilling doesn’t pay well, so I’ll go easy on you.
What have you got to lose? Your credibility? Let’s just say you don’t have anything to worry about on that account.
I’d bet the same amount that you can’t show any one of your criticisms about Bernie that isn’t specious, fallacious, or an outright lie – but I’m not willing to plow though your evasions to get there.
You’re welcome to try as a gentleman’s bet, though. It might help with that credibility thing. Again, you have nothing to lose since declining to answer counts as a loss anyway.
«The quote you posted is in fact speculation on the part of the author.» Well CrazyH, Joshua Frank, the author of the article to which prolecenter provided a link, is hardly the only one to indulge in speculation :«My crystal ball sez Bernie takes NV by ten+ points» – a miss, alas, by 15+ percentage points, rather the «5 points» which you later acknowledged….
I disagree with your claim that «the primary thrust of [Mr Frank’s] article is about handicapping the horse race, not the “revolution”» – given the five paragraphs devoted to Dennis Kucinich’s campaign for the 2004 Democratic nomination, I suggest that his main interest is rather what happens when a progressive campaigner like Kucinich or Sanders loses and then supports the «mainstream» Democratic candidate – in Mr Kucinich’s case, John Forbes Kerry,in Mr Sanders’ Hillary Rodham Clinton. That this is precisely what Mr Sanders intends to do is confirmed by the CBS article of 14 September 2015 to which you yourself link….
Prolecenter may be accused of many sins, but not, I think, intellectual dishonesty ; my impression is quite the contrary : that he says what he means, even if his reward is a great deal of opprobrium on this forum. He doubts that Mr Sanders is leading a «real-life revolution» ; his doubt, if I understand him aright, is based on the fact, on which we all agree, that Mr Sanders will not take the third-party option if he fails to beat Ms Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but instead will support her. Here, too, I must agree with prolecenter – supporting Ms Clinton may or may not be wise tactical move on Mr Sanders’ part in the event he loses the nomination contest, but it can hardly be described as leading a real-life revolution….
For my part, I hope – against hope ? – that Mr Sanders will in fact beat Ms Clinton and secure the Democratic nomination – if he then goes on to beat the Republican nominee, who seems more and more likely to be Mr Trump, that would, I think, constitute a «real-life revolution», at least in terms of politics in the USA (on the other hand, I suspect that Mr Sanders would quickly be assassinated if he didn’t fall into line, but that’s another matter). A Sanders win would, I suspect (hope the battery’s charged on my crystal ball !) be accompanied by a Democratic majority in both the US House and Senate, and this with a president disposed, unlike Barack Hussein Obama, to make the most of it to rectify at least the most glaring of the manifold injustices in US society….
Let us see what happens in South Carolina tomorrow….
Henri
Henri – you are engaging in a false dichotomy. “Declining to run as an independent” is not equivalent to ‘turning his back on his supporters.” Other than the horse race – can you quote a sentence from the article which gives us solid examples of Bernie turning his back? Like maybe supporting corporate greed or denouncing unions? Tax breaks for the rich? Anything whatsoever along that line?
Nor does it disprove that he’s ‘leading a revolution.’ (which was Trolecenter’s original misrepresentation of the article) He is most definitely leading something, even if he fails he is/was/will be a leader of that thing. (I decline to split hairs over whether it’s a revolution, a movement, or a gathering of like-minded people.)
The event under discussion has not happened yet – so yes, it’s speculation on the part of the author. Time will tell whether he declines to run or actively supports Hillary. I would be disappointed in that case, but it’s also an unfortunate reality of our political system.
Yes, I called one race wrong … and what’s that got to do with our argument? I made it obvious that I was speculating, unlike the author of the article who stated it as an already established fact. I didn’t try to make it into something larger than it was.
But let’s cut to the chase – I’ll make you the same offer as I did Trolecenter. A hundred bucks says he says far more negative things about Sanders on this site than he does about Trump.
Bragging rights that you can’t find one, single, argument he’s ever made against Sanders that *isn’t* specious, fallacious or an outfight lie.
Bonus question: why would an honest man need to resort to dishonest tactics? (note that this question depends on you first addressing the previous challenge.)
CrazyH, you seem to be grasping after straws – first you accuse a writer of «speculation» and then, when I point out that in prognosticating on the future, we all, not least yourself, engage in speculation, you excuse yourself by asking rhetorically : «what’s that got to do with our argument?». Not, to my mind, a particularly adequate – or to use your terminology, «honest» – way to conduct a discussion….
Your may very well believe that «“Declining to run as an independent” is not equivalent to ‘turning his back on his supporters.” » ; obviously Joshua Frank and prolecenter disagree. I fully understand why the latter two regard supporting a corporate puppet and warmonger like Hillary Rodham Clinton as «turning his back on his supporters»; on the other hand, I also understand why a person like Noam Avram Chomsky believes that the most important thing is to defeat whoever the Republican contender may be. Were I a US citizen and eligible to vote in your country, I’d probably take the Chomsky option, even though the prospect of Ms Clinton in the Oval Office as anything than a spectator frightens me almost enough to piss myself – she seems more than capable of instigating a war which could brings the short happy life of H sapiens sapiens to a swift and violent end. One has to play the cards one is dealt….
One can hope – as I do, that things will not come to that pretty pass and instead of having to choose whether to run as an independent (which, as we know, he has already precluded) or to support Ms Clinton’s campaign, Mr Sanders will win the Democratic nomination and then go on to win the presidency. But if that does not occur, then, to my mind, it is up to Mr Sanders to find some way not to turn his back on his supporter at the same time that he supports Ms Clinton’s run. I suspect this will be a difficult task, but if you as a Sanders supporter have any concrete ideas as to how this might be done, I – and surely other participants in this discussion – should be interested in hearing them….
Henri
Henri, please – you’re a better man than this. You need to get down off your high horse and apply a little critical thinking.
The author of the article used his prognostication to justify his conclusion that Bernie would “turn his back” on his supporters. You got that, part, right? He used something that has not happened yet to bolster a pretty weak conclusion.
I did not. I used prognostication as a goal in and of itself. “To call the race” as it were. Surely you can see the difference between the two?
If you would call me a hypocrite, then first attend to the beam in your own eye. You started this discussion out by accusing me of being unjust to Trolecenter. Yet you subject my posts to the most exacting scrutiny while taking his at face value. Is that just behavior on your part? You’ve studied logic, so surely you recognize the informal fallacy commonly known as “Moving the goalposts”?
I have to note that neither you nor Trolecenter have accepted my challenges. If you’ve ever seen a formal debate, then you know what that means. Qui Tacit consentire videtur You lose the point by forfeit. And in this case – losing that particular point loses the entire argument.
Thanks, CrazyH, for informing me that I’m «a better man than this». I’m not at all sure that I am, at least according to your lights, as I continue to find my arguments valid and yours wanting, but I do know that I’ve said all that I have to say on the issue and see no point in repeating myself. Others will have to judge between us – in the unlikely event that they find doing so worthwhile….
Henri
“Realism”? in an election year?
Too funny!
Super delegates, calling in old favors, picking a candidate half the people a disappointed with on the left and 98% of the right can’t stand …depressing. Big B can at least unite the left and win over the middle with programs that help them.
All younger voters and people than want a middle class job and got laid off due to outsourcing or H1B.
Voters working two or more part time jobs so should show up in for at the voting booth if they can get off work, or use a mail in ballot. I know many states treat mail ballot badly but that should be another ongoing fight.
«Voters working two or more part time jobs so should show up in for at the voting booth if they can get off work, or use a mail in ballot. I know many states treat mail ballot badly but that should be another ongoing fight.» Speaking of mail ballots, Oldvet, you might be interested in learning how things are done here in Sweden : the electoral roll is determined automatically for Swedish citizens residing in the country 30 days prior to a national election and voting cards are dispatched to the electorate ; early voting (förtidsröstning), both by mail and by visits to, e g, the local branch library (the alternative I always use) begins 18 days prior to election day. No registration, no need to take off from work, no waiting in long lines. The proportion of the eligible which participated in last national election in 2014 was 85.81 %….
Henri
Yes, Henri, yet another aspect of them socialist countries that we DO NOT want here, thank you very much: periodic outbreaks of representative government. Horrors!!!
(:-?
But falco, surely you enjoy a form of representative government in the United States – the question is merely who is it that is «represented»…. 😉
Henri
Speaking of Swedish politics, here is a short history lesson for everyone:
In 1986 the Social Democrats were in power. The PM, Olof Palme, and his party are what I would call center-left, but that was enough to make him a thorn in the side of the traditional Swedish ruling class, the old aristocracy, and the Americans who were afraid he would take Sweden out of its de facto NATO status. When Palme began a rapprochement with the Soviet Union that was too much. He was killed on the streets of Stockholm late one night; the night before he was to leave for a meeting in Moscow.
The crime was never officially solved, but I think we can all imagine who killed him. Gorbachev, a person I do not admire or particularly respect, stated in an interview that he is certain that Palme’s death was a political assassination.
Symbolic change the reactionaries will allow?
The only symbolic changes allowed will be mislabeling bills…no health care will be labeled The Health Freedom Act.
Phasing out social security for younger people will be called the Retirement Freedom Act.
No set minimum wage…the Full Employment Act.
You have the idea on what the try and label the freedom for economic sharks bills they want to pass.
Sanders would 100% veto the stink from a republican controlled congress.
Hillary might pull out the veto pen 80-90% of the time but she is going to be conflicted on several issues.
On drug legislation or a handout to the banks/wall street I 100% sure Sanders would say NO….Hillary would probably put on a show of resistance and insist on sugar coating a big donor backed bill that will prop up corporate profits at the expense to the commons. Even 10-15 of toxic bills from congress is enough to make life for the average person harder.
Spot on, Oldvet ! The question is, however, if Ms Clinton will be granted the time to «pull out [that] veto pen» or the Republican Congress that will no doubt be elected in November in the event Ms Clinton is the Democratic nominee – the time to pass this type of «Freedom Act» legislation, There is no guarantee that they – or any of the rest of us, in the US and without – will survive the conflagration that our dear war-mongering Ms Clinton is likely to initiate once ensconced in the Oval Office (wonder if William Jefferson will be allowed to visit ?)….
Henri
Oldvet, while we are on the topic of creative terminology, in which the title of a piece of legislation implies precisely the opposite of the actions mandated by the legislation itself, please allow me to contribute one particularly egregious example : Youth Safety & Parental Rights Act….
Henri
“Clear Skies”
“Healthy Forests”
CANNSPAM
and the all time winner: The “Patriot” Act