Once again someone drags out this tired old argument with the foregone conclusion that Hilary will without a doubt win the Democratic primary. This is not an argument for why progressives shouldn't support Bernie Sanders, it's an argument for why the most spineless of Democrats shouldn't. Progressives should support Bernie Sanders, because he's the more progressive candidate. I'm a life-long Democrat. When it comes to general elections, I argue consistently that a third party vote is completely counterproductive. Mathematically, this is absolutely true and will be unless we completely overhaul our voting system. A vote for a third party candidate is functionally equivalent to a half-vote for the candidate you're less supportive of out of the two who have a chance to win. Primaries are not general elections, though. Sure, we still use the same sort of voting, but the result of your candidate losing is still the most popular candidate from your party winning, so that's not horrible. Primaries aren't some sort of ideological trial by fire by which we test the purity of our Chosen Candidate against a gauntlet that poses no serious competition. Bernie Sanders has significant support. People are way more excited about him than they are about Hilary. Just because a lot of us have assumed for the past 8 years that Hilary would win the presidency after Obama doesn't mean it actually has to happen. Bernie Sanders sides with most voters on the majority of issues, including progressive voters who don't usually bother coming out for elections because the Democratic candidates aren't progressive enough for them. Bernie Sanders isn't really a Democrat either. He's an independent who works with the Democrats, but he won't have the same sort of ties to party leadership guiding his actions. He's basically the closest thing to a third party candidate that we can have under the system we've got. He's the perfect progressive candidate. It's not progressives who have a problem with Sanders, it's Clinton supporters. Don't let fear-mongering journalists cause you to vote against your own positions in the primaries. If you like Hilary, by all means vote for Hilary, but if you like Bernie, let's give him a chance! Just because Hilary supporters see him as little more than an obnoxious obstacle doesn't mean we should waver in our support for an electable candidate with significant buzz who would better reflect the politics of the entire country.
I agree with you, and I'm reassured to hear your words. I'm not American, so I'm pretty ignorant of the situation but, from my distant vantage point, I found the prospect of Sanders refreshing.
Then I came across articles like the one I posted, and worried that perhaps I'd got it all wrong. But you're right, of course, what I got all wrong was paying too much attention to journalists.
There is a similar situation going on in the UK at the moment for the election of the leader of the Labour Party (Democrats equivalent). It will be interesting to see how both play out.
That's what I think is one of the really interesting aspects of this whole Sanders thing, he's getting barely any positive press coverage. All his hype seems to be spreading by word of mouth and social media. Every article I've read about him is just one person or another complaining about how he can't win and he may screw up the election for Hilary. It really has done a good job of demonstrating how disconnected journalists are from the general public and from the things they report on.
Agreed. I'm about as far as you get from a Bernie Sanders supporter, but he is very clear about his ideals. He has a long and strong history of standing up for what he believes in and has even been able to show a working knowledge of compromise which is more than I can say for half of Congress. If you believe in what Bernie Sanders believes in, or anything like it, then you should support him. If you don't want to because you just want a 'Democrat' in the White House vs. a 'Republican' then you're not likely the type who is thinking about this hard enough. Voting for party lines is stupid. Vote based on issues. I honestly would have a hard time telling you where Hilary Clinton actually stands on a lot of issues because she's dodging hard stances until the debate season. It's obvious. She doesn't believe in anything but getting into office.
I disagree that voting based on party lines is stupid. Given the immense power transparent congressional voting has given party leaders (in addition to lobbyists and organizations prone to intimidation such as the NRA) party lines become very important. There isn't a lot of deviation from party voting these days because of the sort of pressure party leaders are able to put on other representatives to vote with the party. This means that I'll generally want congress to be filled with members of the party I most often agree with so that their bills have a better chance of passing, as it's the best indicator of how they'll vote, regardless what they themselves say or believe. Of course I also want a president who is a member of my party so that he won't put roadblocks in the way of their agenda and so he'll maybe get a chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice or two. Party does matter, but it's not the only thing that matters. When party lines really don't matter, though, is during general elections. That's the time to focus inward and make sure we're actually getting our best candidate.
Good point. I was being a little hyperbolic I guess. Politics has that effect. I have a problem with uninformed voting really. People who 'vote party lines' don't seem to me they types who would research candidates whatsoever. So what you end up with is a group of people who just check the boxes that say Republican instead of the boxes for people who would work on legitimately concerning issues.
There's most definitely an aspect of that to it too. Like I live in MA. Last election we elected Charlie Baker Governor. I didn't vote for him, but I like him. In retrospect, if I'd watched the debates I probably would have voted for him. He's Governor so his party affiliation doesn't cause any problems at a national political level and he does a good job. I've spoken with a number of Democrats who say they don't like him, though, even though they can't give a more coherent reason why than that he's a Republican. They don't have any policy criticisms or problems with how he votes or what bills he supports or anything he's ever said, they just don't like the little R next to his name. I definitely don't agree with that sort of thinking.