I'm a huge Bernie supporter, so its disheartening for me to see this kind of anti-Sanders sentiment, especially when it comes from those who should be at least political allies. Nevertheless, I think it's important to hear other perspectives, if for no other reason than to better counter them.
Okay, but what's the point of having Hillary Clinton win if she doesn't support our beliefs? It's either having a batshit crazy right-wing nutjob passing conservatives policies, or a center-right democrat with a record of right policies passing conservative policies? Yeah, 'socialist' isn't very palatable for some Americans, but 64% of Americans identify as progressive, they just don't vote. Most don't because they're jaded and there are no true progressive candidates. Among millennials, an overwhelming majority say they would at least vote for a socialist candidate. This isn't an issue of him being unelectable because of his beliefs, it's a matter of our bloc doesn't vote because they don't see representation. If we can actually get to a way to get young people to get to the polls, he could win in a landslide without question. This is a matter of the Democratic Party being spineless as fuck and not standing for their policies or beliefs, or flat out not having them, because they want to be palatable to the center and center-right. It pulls the country further and further to the right and off the deep end.
I think the idea that everyone must get behind a candidate before the primaries even begin is extremely detrimental to our democracy. The us versus them mentality that causes this seems to be just another symptom of our "choose the lesser evil" two party system.
I think the answer in the article is "So that a Republican isn't."
Clinton's nearly as bad, though. I'm not going to settle for someone I think is terrible just because someone more terrible might get elected. I mean, that's the kind of thinking the general election is for, but primaries are about trying to get the candidate you actually want. Personally, I don't think Hilary motivates her base very well. I don't know any liberals who've said they want her in office.
Oh, I agree, but that's the point Barney Frank is trying to make. Sanders might lose to a Republican, so make sure it's Clinton facing whoever emerges from that melee. I didn't mean to imply that I think that way. I think it's defeatist to think of your vote in only the most strategic/tactical way, especially this early. I want Sanders to be president, so I'm going to vote for him. Barney Frank would think I'm a naive idealogue, I guess!
We should be cautious, I think more than anything. I think Bernie has some great ideas. I am a huge supporter. I want him to win the nomination and to then win the Presidency. And by all means we should continue to support him. But I am very afraid that frankly this country does seem to have (reasonable or not) a lot of reluctance in embracing anything 'socialist' and I don't know if a self-avowed socialist can actually win a general election. My worst nightmare would be for Bernie to win the nom only to then lose the election to a Republican. But only time will tell - we are still so incredibly early in this election season. In a bout 5-6 months, who knows what could be different?
'Acrimony' is the word that comes to mind when I think about Ron Paul's base after the 2012 GOP primary concluded. Holding a shadow convention isn't conciliatory. If the Dems decide to go down a similar route with Sanders, they'd best be careful. Sanders is still building name recognition, but he's already got a bigger slice of the pie than Paul had at this point in the 2012 run up. This is actually why I think trying to marginalize his supporters is dangerous. Falling in line after the primaries is questionably productive for them. Frank is banking that Clinton is non-divisive enough and the GOP specter is scary enough to drive that movement. If Sander's base feels both are harmful...His very unwillingness to be confined by existing voter attitudes, as part of a long-term strategy to change them, is both a very valuable contribution to the democratic dialogue and an obvious bar to winning support from the majority of these very voters in the near term.
I disagree. I think that if the left was having reasonable issue-driven debates during the primary without any mudslinging (Sanders isn't one to sling mud, hopefully Hilary doesn't either) as a contrast to the republican circus, it would help the party as a whole. It would make them seem like a reasonable counterpart to the republican zeal. I think that painting themselves as the reasonable party in contrast to the Republican bickering and mud slinging and money and "everything that's wrong with politics in this country" would serve the democrats well. But hey, I'm no political scientist so what do I know.