Puerto Rico doesn't count in the general, but California's very Democratic and New Jersey leans that way. The "he's more electable" claim took a Battleship-sized hit last night, especially with the margin of loss in California. But, take some solace.
He didn't do too badly, especially given self-imposed gags on Clinton's email problems, self-imposed gags on much of Clinton's foreign policy, and possibly shooting himself in the foot by making himself sound more like a socialist than he actually is. (More on this below.)
Second, Clintonistas, put a sock in your smugness.
Beyond Jill Stein and before her, Cynthia McKinney, being women to get presidential nominations, Victoria Woodhull did back in 1872. If you don't know the name, your tribalism is shallow indeed. If you say "major party," then isn't that a reflection on gender problems in the Democratic Party?
Put a sock in it for another reason.
Sanders was nowhere near the opponent Obama was in 2008, and got a later start than Dear Leader did, too. And you still almost couldn't beat him.
Third, whether you choose to put a sock in it or not, I'll be posting "a sock" .... or two or three ... on Twitter regularly until Nov. 4.
Fourth, per part of the above, really, it's a sad state of affairs that a lifelong grifter with oodles of cash and connections struggled to put away a not-socialist who handicapped his own campaign and may, in his mid-70s, have faced health problems down the road that we now won't know for sure.
We do know that this says a lot about how weak the modern national-level Democratic Party is. I've been saying that for some time.
For Democrats pointing at the weakness of the GOP to nominate Trump, you've got three fingers pointing back at yourself.
Fifth, unfortunately, in some ways, the damn thing probably isn't over, and we're in for more weeks of Sandernista excuse-making and Clintonista smugness. (And, if Sanders does anything more than a pro forma fight for the handful of delegates DC elects next week, more acrimony, too, past what should have been the last battlefield outside of platform-related fights.)
Sixth, that said, Sandernistas or Bernie-backers or whatever?
If you're under 30, OK, a couple of days of lament. If you're over 30, time to put on your big boy or big girl pants now.
You've got three options for the future:
1. Vote Hillary
2. Vote Green
3. Sit out.
If "option 4" even thinks of crossing your minds, you've got problems indeed.
As I've said before, I want you to vote Green. But, per friend Brains (and yes, there's still time a-plenty) I'm kind of skeptical about how many of you will make that choice.
Otherwise, no, the Green Party isn't winning this year's presidential election. But real, true change in the US political system will take time and heavy lifting from top down and bottom up. Getting state legislators changed. Getting state election laws more friendly to third parties. Getting the US to be at least a modicum more like a parliamentary government and dethroning the imperial presidency. Voting rights. More.
That said, the same three apply to Sanders himself. He can tell his followers — with various degrees of either resignation or enthusiasm, and either directly or between the lines — to:
1. Vote Hillary
2. Vote Green
3. Sit out.
I suspect he'll do No. 1, with about as much enthusiasm as Ted Kennedy in 1980. Which is too bad.
Ted didn't have a Green Party — where he wouldn't have fit, anyway — or a national level Socialist party as an alternative, and he was even more ensconced inside the Democratic Party than Sanders is.
Bernie's ensconced himself enough, though, that — sadly — I'll give you odds right now that we'll not get an option 2, a clarion call to Vote Green, from his lips.
So, that's why I'm making it.
2 comments:
Sanders said he would go all the way to the convention. He will. He also said he would support the Dem nominee. I expect he will, however reluctantly, and even though I'd prefer to see him join the Greens. See, that's a large part of why he is liked -- he actually means what he says.
No doubt a lot of Bernie supporters will roll over in the end. As for me, the only thing I'm ruling out is voting for a Clinton restoration. All things considered, I still think that's the worst possible outcome.
It's maddening but not surprising to have to listen to the idiotic prattle about Historic Hillary. Like no one ever heard of Maggie Thatcher or Indira Ghandi.
Agreed with you, Jags, on him pitching his tent with the Dems. Still not sure how his backers will split.
I expect him to have some sort of declaration by Saturday, since he's meeting with Dear Leader tomorrow. If he doesn't play ball at all, Senate Dems have the power to read him back out of the caucus, if nothing else, and if they get to 51 votes without him, that's feasible. It's not like Ted Kennedy 1980, where the party, and Carter in particular, for many reasons had little leverage.
Post a Comment