Let's say we have a primary just like this one and the front runner is Joe Schmo. On May 9th, with the race almost won one of the following occurs:
Joe has a stroke
Joe is diagnosed with a terminal disease or cancer that is potentially terminal requiring extensive treatment
Joe is caught on camera saying explicitly racist stuff that many consider disqualifying and/or could permanently damage the relationship of the party with the black community
Joe is found with a dead boy
Without supers the candidate can effectively not be stopped and you could have a dead candidate walking.
And I don't think the outrage people predict would occur. Obama won pledged delegates but partially because Michigan and Florida were effectively disenfranchised and no one cared. People are largely complaining about the delegate system because Trump and Sanders are. It'll be a forgotten footnote by June and not brought up again for (assuming Clinton wins) 8 years.
Without supers, the delegates agree on a new rule: Candidates require a unanimous vote to win on the first ballot. Problem solved!
This presumes the candidate in question has selected delegates that can be persuaded away from their candidate.
Let's say we have a primary just like this one and the front runner is Joe Schmo. On May 9th, with the race almost won one of the following occurs:
Joe has a stroke
Joe is diagnosed with a terminal disease or cancer that is potentially terminal requiring extensive treatment
Joe is caught on camera saying explicitly racist stuff that many consider disqualifying and/or could permanently damage the relationship of the party with the black community
Joe is found with a dead boy
Without supers the candidate can effectively not be stopped and you could have a dead candidate walking.
And I don't think the outrage people predict would occur. Obama won pledged delegates but partially because Michigan and Florida were effectively disenfranchised and no one cared. People are largely complaining about the delegate system because Trump and Sanders are. It'll be a forgotten footnote by June and not brought up again for (assuming Clinton wins) 8 years.
Without supers, the delegates agree on a new rule: Candidates require a unanimous vote to win on the first ballot. Problem solved!
This presumes the candidate in question has selected delegates that can be persuaded away from their candidate.
If the question is "would you rather divide the supporters and lose with a typical nominee damaged by the process" or "would you rather let Trump (or Trump-like) be the face of your party for six months and still lose" I know where I stand.
I hope that Bernie can get some planks added, or some influence on them done. I never really cared one way or the other during the primary. I voted for Bernie, but mostly just to show that there are people out there who will support and vote for someone who espouses some crazy leftist positions. Hillary I think will make a fine President, and I think that the odds are in her favor to win with someone like Trump out there (despite the raging hate boner that seemingly everyone has for Hilldawg)
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
If the question is "would you rather divide the supporters and lose with a typical nominee damaged by the process" or "would you rather let Trump (or Trump-like) be the face of your party for six months and still lose" I know where I stand.
Especially since there are other candidates running, I agree. Many races are going to effectively be on Presidential coattails and its better to have a losing candidate that doesn't hurt you too badly than one that pulls you down
If the question is "would you rather divide the supporters and lose with a typical nominee damaged by the process" or "would you rather let Trump (or Trump-like) be the face of your party for six months and still lose" I know where I stand.
Especially since there are other candidates running, I agree. Many races are going to effectively be on Presidential coattails and its better to have a losing candidate that doesn't hurt you too badly than one that pulls you down
I agree with all of this, except for the idea that Cruz wouldn't be bringing them down nearly if not exactly as badly.
I hope that Bernie can get some planks added, or some influence on them done. I never really cared one way or the other during the primary. I voted for Bernie, but mostly just to show that there are people out there who will support and vote for someone who espouses some crazy leftist positions. Hillary I think will make a fine President, and I think that the odds are in her favor to win with someone like Trump out there (despite the raging hate boner that seemingly everyone has for Hilldawg)
Eh the people who really hate Clinton are generally already republicans. I mean I know people like to make a big deal out of their one friend who is totally a life long dem but hates Clinton totes for sure. But statistically that is just not a big factor in any poll ever conducted.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
I generally trend towards the center, which is now very much solidly Democrat territory, and seek good governance over major initiatives. I want to see platforms rooted in pragmatic and realistic goals to make the country better rather than un-researched or radical changes.
Both Hilary and Sanders have platforms I like, but only Hilary really has a shot of getting hers done. Also, Sanders and his supporters have pretty consistently told me at nearly every turn that if I'm not all in on solving every problem RIGHT NOW I am part of the problem, when there is about 0% chance of any of his platform actually passing. While I like having his voice in the conversation on national politics, he has pretty solidly driven me away from ever wanting to vote for him (and that was before doing any digging on his voting history). Looking at his past relationship with the democratic party, he is such a non-team player there is no way he could get consensus to actually do any of his proposed platform vene if he controlled both houses. Maybe something tenuously approved, but I really doubt the Democratic party as a whole would even want to work with him.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Running on a platform of fundamentally transforming a political party requires convincing the party that fundamental transformation is necessary.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Running on a platform of fundamentally transforming a political party requires convincing the party that fundamental transformation is necessary.
Who knew?
Obviously how messages are delivered doesn't matter at all.
Or
Maybe it was the case that a not insignificant number of people felt that Bernies message was "Fuck you, vote for me and be a real Democrat you borderline Republican shithead"
Which, I don't know if Bernie himself ever said anything like that. But god damn some of his supporters were frothing lunatics. I think that is a sort of inevitable part of any political movement with the kind of tent revival energy that Bernie's has. When you're whipping a crowd into a frenzy over injustice, you got to be careful about how frenzied they get.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Also, Vox's piece on Tuesday's winners and losers has a good breakdown of what happened in the PA/MD Senate races:
It's easy to forget this amidst the madness of the presidential primary process, but in sensible systems, like those at work in most American states for congressional and statewide offices, members of the relevant parties all just vote at once and then the person with more votes gets the nomination. The counties aren't assigned varying numbers of delegates and then holding their own elections every couple of weeks. It all seems to work pretty well.
And it worked very well for national Democratic leaders in two crucial Senate primaries Tuesday. In Maryland, where the primary basically determines the general election victor, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of the rich white DC suburbs beat out Rep. Donna Edwards of the poorer, black DC suburbs. While little separated the candidates ideologically, the party as a whole trusted Van Hollen vastly more. He's been in the House for 14 years, led the DCCC for two cycles, served as House Democrats' leading voice on budget issues, and was widely considered a likely successor to Nancy Pelosi as a future speaker or minority leader before he opted to try for the Senate.
Edwards, by contrast, came to power by beating a generally liked Democratic incumbent in a primary and has always been widely loathed by the party establishment. Despite her potential to become the second black woman elected to the US Senate in American history, only four out of 46 members in the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed her. Politico's Rachael Bade reports that many of the CBC's members thought Edwards was "not an easy colleague to work with."
Many Maryland Democrats, like former gubernatorial candidate Heather Mizeur, accused her of failing at basic duties like constituent service. SEIU's Baltimore affiliate, which helped her win her House primary, turned against her after she ignored their pleas to defend a unionized hospital and fell down at helping union member constituents. Establishment Democrats, as Vox's Andrew Prokop explains, thought Edwards was just fundamentally awful at basic political tasks, and also kind of a jerk. Van Hollen, by contrast, is widely trusted and believed to be an excellent legislative tactician. Him winning lets the establishment breathe a big sigh of relief.
An arguably even bigger win came in Pennsylvania, where incumbent Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) looks vulnerable in a presidential election year where Hillary Clinton is all but certain to win the state. The obvious Democratic candidate was former Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired three-star admiral who was the nominee in 2010 and lost by only two points in a Republican wave year. He's got the name recognition, the experience, and the competitive numbers; what's not to like?
Well, everything. Everyone in the Democratic establishment loathes Sestak, much like they loathe Edwards. Part of this is the hard-to-confirm but widely circulated belief that Sestak is a giant asshole who's difficult to work with:
As Vox's Dara Lind explains, there's also the more concrete grievance that Sestak went forward with a 2010 primary challenge against Arlen Specter right after Specter took a giant risk and defected to the Democrats in 2009, giving them a filibuster-proof majority in time to pass Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.
In any case, the party establishment united behind Katie McGinty, the former chief of staff to Gov. Tom Wolf. McGinty is — on paper and probably overall — a significantly weaker candidate than Sestak. She's never held elected office. The last time she ran, in the 2014 gubernatorial primary, she got fourth place out of four and less than 8 percent of the vote. She has very low name recognition and has consistently polled worse against Toomey than Sestak has.
No matter: Former Gov. Ed Rendell signed on as McGinty's campaign chair, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden endorsed her, Wolf endorsed her — everyone who matters endorsed her. And so, despite trailing for most of the race, McGinty beat Sestak for the nomination. That might hurt Democrats' odds in November. But it's a remarkable case of the establishment reversing voters' pre-existing preferences through an overwhelming show of force.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
I'm personally far from pro-Clinton. My stance is that she is the best of the bunch right now, not that she is the best candidate to pull the democratic party or the country. Sanders could have swayed me if his platform was a bit more realistic and considerably less hostile.
But lets be honest, Sanders himself isn't concerned with making a wide tent. His hope was to emulate GOP practices of whipping up a populist, fanatical base with his ideology and relying upon motivated turnout rather than global appeal. This time round that didn't work out for him, but historically that route has been shown to work on plenty of cases.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
But people say Clinton needs to take on Bernie's platform to appeal to his voters, but Bernie never offered an Olive branch to try and persuade the clinton voters to him at any point. Its not even "I'm like clinton" its "have an appeal to people you are losing."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
Yeah, I mean, Sanders isn't trying to be everyone's first choice. No one is or can do that. He's appealing to specific groups and interests. There just weren't enough of them.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
But people say Clinton needs to take on Bernie's platform to appeal to his voters, but Bernie never offered an Olive branch to try and persuade the clinton voters to him at any point. Its not even "I'm like clinton" its "have an appeal to people you are losing."
His whole campaign was built on the argument that the Democratic Party needs to be fundamentally transformed. That meant that he had to make two arguments:
* To the party members who don't see the need for sweeping, fundamental change, he needed to make the case for that change to them.
* To party members who, while friendly to the need for change, were concerned with losing gains made in the chaos of that change, he needed to reassure them that they wouldn't be forgotten.
He failed miserably at both, instead focusing more on an insurgent campaign built on the independent vote. Is it any surprise that wound up failing?
I was very glad to hear Clinton stress the importance of midterms.
Because for the first half of her initial term the only thing she's going to be able to do as President is just live in the white house again.
Well and put up a SCOTUS justice you know that little thing we currently don't have that everyone has forgotten?
Well, the math on that doesn't really change at all
The rhetoric does, they claimed america has to have their say, if america has their say and Hillary wins then they have to come up with a new excuse. Hillary Clinton will decide who the new justice is one way or another in her first two years if she's elected.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
I'm personally far from pro-Clinton. My stance is that she is the best of the bunch right now, not that she is the best candidate to pull the democratic party or the country. Sanders could have swayed me if his platform was a bit more realistic and considerably less hostile.
But lets be honest, Sanders himself isn't concerned with making a wide tent. His hope was to emulate GOP practices of whipping up a populist, fanatical base with his ideology and relying upon motivated turnout rather than global appeal. This time round that didn't work out for him, but historically that route has been shown to work on plenty of cases.
I don't know that I agree with your characterization of Sanders' approach. Frankly, I think after the surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire he wasn't really sure what to do and just kind of kept doing the things that worked there.
Undeniably, his appeal was populist. This is clearly the case. The level of support he garnered based on flatly stating progressive values was surprising to basically everybody, including him and Clinton. For him, that meant he was left as the primary opposition to the assumed nominee, while for Clinton it meant that pushing her rhetoric bigger and further left clearly had an audience. One of the two candidates already had a world class campaign operation, and people much more experienced in reading an electorate, and it showed in how things played out over the primary.
Ultimately, Sanders was and is a vehicle for something that was already there much more than he's a driver. That not everyone is on board with it isn't an inherent weakness of his, but more a reflection of the reality that movements aren't all encompassing, and change makes people nervous. But for all the hand-wringing around these parts and elsewhere on the internet that Sanders is going to destroy the party or whatever, he's still really damn popular among Democrats, even ones that voted for Clinton. So the perception that he's a divisive, bellicose outsider isn't nearly as widespread as it might seem from these discussions.
Sanders has been really good at something that is a deep weakness of Clinton; Selling Democratic ideals. Clinton is great when she gets down in the weeds to discuss systems and approaches, but she really struggles at making people who aren't already on board agree with her and no amount of technocratic savvy is going to help there. In this, Clinton is definitely not unique, as it's an issue that Democrats have had for a generation. We suck at selling our ideas, even when they're really good ideas. And we start from the possible and not the ideal, which means we're negotiating from weakness right from the beginning.
The party needs Sanderses just as much as it needs Clintons. In terms of wonk vs evangelist, I'd say we actually need Sanderses more right now, because we're losing on messaging pretty much across the board. I think Clinton will make a fine president in terms of working within the system, but I'd love it if she could take some more cues from Sanders and Obama and Biden on messaging. Working small is sometimes necessary, but selling big is absolutely crucial when your big ideas are as much better than the other guys' as ours are.
I was very glad to hear Clinton stress the importance of midterms.
Because for the first half of her initial term the only thing she's going to be able to do as President is just live in the white house again.
Well and put up a SCOTUS justice you know that little thing we currently don't have that everyone has forgotten?
Yeah, that's not happening before the midterms either.
All you need is the senate.
Beyond that, this seems like sour grapes? It's not like Bernie will be any luckier with the house, so the "she can live in the white house again " snipe seems unnecessary
I was very glad to hear Clinton stress the importance of midterms.
Because for the first half of her initial term the only thing she's going to be able to do as President is just live in the white house again.
Well and put up a SCOTUS justice you know that little thing we currently don't have that everyone has forgotten?
Well, the math on that doesn't really change at all
The rhetoric does, they claimed america has to have their say, if america has their say and Hillary wins then they have to come up with a new excuse. Hillary Clinton will decide who the new justice is one way or another in her first two years if she's elected.
I don't doubt she'll decide on her own nominee. I also don't doubt that a Republican controlled Senate will do everything they can to block her nominee.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
But people say Clinton needs to take on Bernie's platform to appeal to his voters, but Bernie never offered an Olive branch to try and persuade the clinton voters to him at any point. Its not even "I'm like clinton" its "have an appeal to people you are losing."
I don't think this is true. I think that it's much more accurate to say that Sanders stuck to his message regardless of the room he was in because he's a true believer in that message with no experience or interest in changing what he is saying based on his current audience. He did plenty of outreach to the demographics he was losing, it just wasn't terribly effective. In large part that was due to how deeply ingrained Clinton already was in those populations and the Democratic electorate as a whole, but it was also due to the fact that Sanders' pitch just didn't resonate enough to get a majority of them to switch to his side. That happens in every election, especially primaries where candidates who basically agree with each other are competing for the same votes.
Clinton is much better at being everything to everyone, at least within the party. In the classic politico sense. And she has people around her who are very experienced at helping candidates do that thing. Sanders isn't everything to everyone, he's Bernie Goddamn Sanders whether he's in a room filled with hedge fund managers or homeless people, and that is a big part of his appeal for his supporters.
Ardent Clinton supporters weren't going to jump ship because Sanders changed a piece of his platform here or there, and populations that were already leaning her direction weren't going to flip because the other guy started sounding more like she did.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
I'm personally far from pro-Clinton. My stance is that she is the best of the bunch right now, not that she is the best candidate to pull the democratic party or the country. Sanders could have swayed me if his platform was a bit more realistic and considerably less hostile.
But lets be honest, Sanders himself isn't concerned with making a wide tent. His hope was to emulate GOP practices of whipping up a populist, fanatical base with his ideology and relying upon motivated turnout rather than global appeal. This time round that didn't work out for him, but historically that route has been shown to work on plenty of cases.
I don't know that I agree with your characterization of Sanders' approach. Frankly, I think after the surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire he wasn't really sure what to do and just kind of kept doing the things that worked there.
Undeniably, his appeal was populist. This is clearly the case. The level of support he garnered based on flatly stating progressive values was surprising to basically everybody, including him and Clinton. For him, that meant he was left as the primary opposition to the assumed nominee, while for Clinton it meant that pushing her rhetoric bigger and further left clearly had an audience. One of the two candidates already had a world class campaign operation, and people much more experienced in reading an electorate, and it showed in how things played out over the primary.
Ultimately, Sanders was and is a vehicle for something that was already there much more than he's a driver. That not everyone is on board with it isn't an inherent weakness of his, but more a reflection of the reality that movements aren't all encompassing, and change makes people nervous. But for all the hand-wringing around these parts and elsewhere on the internet that Sanders is going to destroy the party or whatever, he's still really damn popular among Democrats, even ones that voted for Clinton. So the perception that he's a divisive, bellicose outsider isn't nearly as widespread as it might seem from these discussions.
Sanders has been really good at something that is a deep weakness of Clinton; Selling Democratic ideals. Clinton is great when she gets down in the weeds to discuss systems and approaches, but she really struggles at making people who aren't already on board agree with her and no amount of technocratic savvy is going to help there. In this, Clinton is definitely not unique, as it's an issue that Democrats have had for a generation. We suck at selling our ideas, even when they're really good ideas. And we start from the possible and not the ideal, which means we're negotiating from weakness right from the beginning.
The party needs Sanderses just as much as it needs Clintons. In terms of wonk vs evangelist, I'd say we actually need Sanderses more right now, because we're losing on messaging pretty much across the board. I think Clinton will make a fine president in terms of working within the system, but I'd love it if she could take some more cues from Sanders and Obama and Biden on messaging. Working small is sometimes necessary, but selling big is absolutely crucial when your big ideas are as much better than the other guys' as ours are.
How the fuck are Democrats losing on messaging across the board!?
That sounds likea whole bunch of bull plop to me. Like grade A bull plop. Democrat values kinda shape the media narrative everywhere. They have no shortage of outlets spewing forth the Democrat rhetoric and ideologies and values. Like I don't even understand where that statement comes from. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how Democrat messaging is losing.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
But people say Clinton needs to take on Bernie's platform to appeal to his voters, but Bernie never offered an Olive branch to try and persuade the clinton voters to him at any point. Its not even "I'm like clinton" its "have an appeal to people you are losing."
I don't think this is true. I think that it's much more accurate to say that Sanders stuck to his message regardless of the room he was in because he's a true believer in that message with no experience or interest in changing what he is saying based on his current audience. He did plenty of outreach to the demographics he was losing, it just wasn't terribly effective. In large part that was due to how deeply ingrained Clinton already was in those populations and the Democratic electorate as a whole, but it was also due to the fact that Sanders' pitch just didn't resonate enough to get a majority of them to switch to his side. That happens in every election, especially primaries where candidates who basically agree with each other are competing for the same votes.
Clinton is much better at being everything to everyone, at least within the party. In the classic politico sense. And she has people around her who are very experienced at helping candidates do that thing. Sanders isn't everything to everyone, he's Bernie Goddamn Sanders whether he's in a room filled with hedge fund managers or homeless people, and that is a big part of his appeal for his supporters.
Ardent Clinton supporters weren't going to jump ship because Sanders changed a piece of his platform here or there, and populations that were already leaning her direction weren't going to flip because the other guy started sounding more like she did.
Nobody is saying that he had to sound more like Clinton. Hell, he didn't even have to really change his core platform, because it did resonate.
What he needed to do us realize that a coalition party demands coalition building, and that in turn means getting multiple factions to align together. Which, quite often, means showing them that their issues will be a plank in your platform. And that's where he really fell flat.
I was very glad to hear Clinton stress the importance of midterms.
Because for the first half of her initial term the only thing she's going to be able to do as President is just live in the white house again.
Well and put up a SCOTUS justice you know that little thing we currently don't have that everyone has forgotten?
Yeah, that's not happening before the midterms either.
With a Clinton vs Trump matchup, we're favored to take the Senate. Schumer will then kill the filibuster, or at least the easy filibuster, on nominees with the new rules of the Senate which can't be themselves filibustered and are majority only.
Its also entirely conceivable with Clinton vs Trump that we can swing the House if Dems aren't complacent.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
I'm personally far from pro-Clinton. My stance is that she is the best of the bunch right now, not that she is the best candidate to pull the democratic party or the country. Sanders could have swayed me if his platform was a bit more realistic and considerably less hostile.
But lets be honest, Sanders himself isn't concerned with making a wide tent. His hope was to emulate GOP practices of whipping up a populist, fanatical base with his ideology and relying upon motivated turnout rather than global appeal. This time round that didn't work out for him, but historically that route has been shown to work on plenty of cases.
I don't know that I agree with your characterization of Sanders' approach. Frankly, I think after the surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire he wasn't really sure what to do and just kind of kept doing the things that worked there.
Undeniably, his appeal was populist. This is clearly the case. The level of support he garnered based on flatly stating progressive values was surprising to basically everybody, including him and Clinton. For him, that meant he was left as the primary opposition to the assumed nominee, while for Clinton it meant that pushing her rhetoric bigger and further left clearly had an audience. One of the two candidates already had a world class campaign operation, and people much more experienced in reading an electorate, and it showed in how things played out over the primary.
Ultimately, Sanders was and is a vehicle for something that was already there much more than he's a driver. That not everyone is on board with it isn't an inherent weakness of his, but more a reflection of the reality that movements aren't all encompassing, and change makes people nervous. But for all the hand-wringing around these parts and elsewhere on the internet that Sanders is going to destroy the party or whatever, he's still really damn popular among Democrats, even ones that voted for Clinton. So the perception that he's a divisive, bellicose outsider isn't nearly as widespread as it might seem from these discussions.
Sanders has been really good at something that is a deep weakness of Clinton; Selling Democratic ideals. Clinton is great when she gets down in the weeds to discuss systems and approaches, but she really struggles at making people who aren't already on board agree with her and no amount of technocratic savvy is going to help there. In this, Clinton is definitely not unique, as it's an issue that Democrats have had for a generation. We suck at selling our ideas, even when they're really good ideas. And we start from the possible and not the ideal, which means we're negotiating from weakness right from the beginning.
The party needs Sanderses just as much as it needs Clintons. In terms of wonk vs evangelist, I'd say we actually need Sanderses more right now, because we're losing on messaging pretty much across the board. I think Clinton will make a fine president in terms of working within the system, but I'd love it if she could take some more cues from Sanders and Obama and Biden on messaging. Working small is sometimes necessary, but selling big is absolutely crucial when your big ideas are as much better than the other guys' as ours are.
How the fuck are Democrats losing on messaging across the board!?
That sounds like while bunch of bull plop to me. Like grade A bull plop. Democrat values kinda shape the media narrative everywhere. They have no shortage of outlets spewing forth the Democrat rhetoric and ideologies and values. Like I don't even understand where that statement comes from. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how Democrat messaging is losing.
Republicans control both houses of congress. Obamacare is slowly becoming more popular, but definitely not due to messaging wins. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the chopping block literally every year. Access to education is getting harder and harder.
Basic economic and quality of life improvements are becoming basically impossible to get done outside of blue states. In basically every case we're in the middle of a rearguard action negotiating the sizes of the loses to bedrock programs that underpin our ideals as a party.
Social issues we're making some progress on, but the Democratic party is a lagging indicator on public sentiment on those. Except on things like abortion rights, which we're still losing state by state and not actually fighting that hard to fix federally.
I love that we're the party with policy wonks that are actually connected to reality. But to huge swaths of the american people, the stuff that we want is either unrealistic or actively antithetical to their idea of how things ought to be. The Right is much better at appealing to people who vote with their guts, and it wins them governorships and control of congress. We're losing that battle and we have been for a very long time because we're not contesting it outside of safe states and national races.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
I'm personally far from pro-Clinton. My stance is that she is the best of the bunch right now, not that she is the best candidate to pull the democratic party or the country. Sanders could have swayed me if his platform was a bit more realistic and considerably less hostile.
But lets be honest, Sanders himself isn't concerned with making a wide tent. His hope was to emulate GOP practices of whipping up a populist, fanatical base with his ideology and relying upon motivated turnout rather than global appeal. This time round that didn't work out for him, but historically that route has been shown to work on plenty of cases.
I don't know that I agree with your characterization of Sanders' approach. Frankly, I think after the surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire he wasn't really sure what to do and just kind of kept doing the things that worked there.
Undeniably, his appeal was populist. This is clearly the case. The level of support he garnered based on flatly stating progressive values was surprising to basically everybody, including him and Clinton. For him, that meant he was left as the primary opposition to the assumed nominee, while for Clinton it meant that pushing her rhetoric bigger and further left clearly had an audience. One of the two candidates already had a world class campaign operation, and people much more experienced in reading an electorate, and it showed in how things played out over the primary.
Ultimately, Sanders was and is a vehicle for something that was already there much more than he's a driver. That not everyone is on board with it isn't an inherent weakness of his, but more a reflection of the reality that movements aren't all encompassing, and change makes people nervous. But for all the hand-wringing around these parts and elsewhere on the internet that Sanders is going to destroy the party or whatever, he's still really damn popular among Democrats, even ones that voted for Clinton. So the perception that he's a divisive, bellicose outsider isn't nearly as widespread as it might seem from these discussions.
Sanders has been really good at something that is a deep weakness of Clinton; Selling Democratic ideals. Clinton is great when she gets down in the weeds to discuss systems and approaches, but she really struggles at making people who aren't already on board agree with her and no amount of technocratic savvy is going to help there. In this, Clinton is definitely not unique, as it's an issue that Democrats have had for a generation. We suck at selling our ideas, even when they're really good ideas. And we start from the possible and not the ideal, which means we're negotiating from weakness right from the beginning.
The party needs Sanderses just as much as it needs Clintons. In terms of wonk vs evangelist, I'd say we actually need Sanderses more right now, because we're losing on messaging pretty much across the board. I think Clinton will make a fine president in terms of working within the system, but I'd love it if she could take some more cues from Sanders and Obama and Biden on messaging. Working small is sometimes necessary, but selling big is absolutely crucial when your big ideas are as much better than the other guys' as ours are.
How the fuck are Democrats losing on messaging across the board!?
That sounds like while bunch of bull plop to me. Like grade A bull plop. Democrat values kinda shape the media narrative everywhere. They have no shortage of outlets spewing forth the Democrat rhetoric and ideologies and values. Like I don't even understand where that statement comes from. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how Democrat messaging is losing.
Republicans control both houses of congress. Obamacare is slowly becoming more popular, but definitely not due to messaging wins. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the chopping block literally every year. Access to education is getting harder and harder.
Basic economic and quality of life improvements are becoming basically impossible to get done outside of blue states. In basically every case we're in the middle of a rearguard action negotiating the sizes of the loses to bedrock programs that underpin our ideals as a party.
Social issues we're making some progress on, but the Democratic party is a lagging indicator on public sentiment on those. Except on things like abortion rights, which we're still losing state by state and not actually fighting that hard to fix federally.
I love that we're the party with policy wonks that are actually connected to reality. But to huge swaths of the american people, the stuff that we want is either unrealistic or actively antithetical to their idea of how things ought to be. The Right is much better at appealing to people who vote with their guts, and it wins them governorships and control of congress. We're losing that battle and we have been for a very long time because we're not contesting it outside of safe states and national races.
even in blue states we aren't necessarily winning the messaging war
Washington's schools are criminally underfunded (and I mean that in a literal sense--our school system is so broke that the supreme court declared it unconstitutional) and people still refuse to acknowledge that it's time for more taxes
our Democratic legislature still spent twenty of our state's most prosperous years slashing the budget and acted surprised when it turned out they wouldn't be able to pay for basic services when the recession hit
the party is shit at convincing the public that taxes and social programs are a good thing and it's weird that anyone would argue with this
+3
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
But people say Clinton needs to take on Bernie's platform to appeal to his voters, but Bernie never offered an Olive branch to try and persuade the clinton voters to him at any point. Its not even "I'm like clinton" its "have an appeal to people you are losing."
I don't think this is true. I think that it's much more accurate to say that Sanders stuck to his message regardless of the room he was in because he's a true believer in that message with no experience or interest in changing what he is saying based on his current audience. He did plenty of outreach to the demographics he was losing, it just wasn't terribly effective. In large part that was due to how deeply ingrained Clinton already was in those populations and the Democratic electorate as a whole, but it was also due to the fact that Sanders' pitch just didn't resonate enough to get a majority of them to switch to his side. That happens in every election, especially primaries where candidates who basically agree with each other are competing for the same votes.
Clinton is much better at being everything to everyone, at least within the party. In the classic politico sense. And she has people around her who are very experienced at helping candidates do that thing. Sanders isn't everything to everyone, he's Bernie Goddamn Sanders whether he's in a room filled with hedge fund managers or homeless people, and that is a big part of his appeal for his supporters.
Ardent Clinton supporters weren't going to jump ship because Sanders changed a piece of his platform here or there, and populations that were already leaning her direction weren't going to flip because the other guy started sounding more like she did.
Nobody is saying that he had to sound more like Clinton. Hell, he didn't even have to really change his core platform, because it did resonate.
What he needed to do us realize that a coalition party demands coalition building, and that in turn means getting multiple factions to align together. Which, quite often, means showing them that their issues will be a plank in your platform. And that's where he really fell flat.
Exactly. Bernie is an ideological candidate trying to lead a coalition party. It's why he played poorly with discrete coalition members with discrete interests but did extraordinarily well with unaffiliated ideologues.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
I'm personally far from pro-Clinton. My stance is that she is the best of the bunch right now, not that she is the best candidate to pull the democratic party or the country. Sanders could have swayed me if his platform was a bit more realistic and considerably less hostile.
But lets be honest, Sanders himself isn't concerned with making a wide tent. His hope was to emulate GOP practices of whipping up a populist, fanatical base with his ideology and relying upon motivated turnout rather than global appeal. This time round that didn't work out for him, but historically that route has been shown to work on plenty of cases.
I don't know that I agree with your characterization of Sanders' approach. Frankly, I think after the surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire he wasn't really sure what to do and just kind of kept doing the things that worked there.
Undeniably, his appeal was populist. This is clearly the case. The level of support he garnered based on flatly stating progressive values was surprising to basically everybody, including him and Clinton. For him, that meant he was left as the primary opposition to the assumed nominee, while for Clinton it meant that pushing her rhetoric bigger and further left clearly had an audience. One of the two candidates already had a world class campaign operation, and people much more experienced in reading an electorate, and it showed in how things played out over the primary.
Ultimately, Sanders was and is a vehicle for something that was already there much more than he's a driver. That not everyone is on board with it isn't an inherent weakness of his, but more a reflection of the reality that movements aren't all encompassing, and change makes people nervous. But for all the hand-wringing around these parts and elsewhere on the internet that Sanders is going to destroy the party or whatever, he's still really damn popular among Democrats, even ones that voted for Clinton. So the perception that he's a divisive, bellicose outsider isn't nearly as widespread as it might seem from these discussions.
Sanders has been really good at something that is a deep weakness of Clinton; Selling Democratic ideals. Clinton is great when she gets down in the weeds to discuss systems and approaches, but she really struggles at making people who aren't already on board agree with her and no amount of technocratic savvy is going to help there. In this, Clinton is definitely not unique, as it's an issue that Democrats have had for a generation. We suck at selling our ideas, even when they're really good ideas. And we start from the possible and not the ideal, which means we're negotiating from weakness right from the beginning.
The party needs Sanderses just as much as it needs Clintons. In terms of wonk vs evangelist, I'd say we actually need Sanderses more right now, because we're losing on messaging pretty much across the board. I think Clinton will make a fine president in terms of working within the system, but I'd love it if she could take some more cues from Sanders and Obama and Biden on messaging. Working small is sometimes necessary, but selling big is absolutely crucial when your big ideas are as much better than the other guys' as ours are.
How the fuck are Democrats losing on messaging across the board!?
That sounds like while bunch of bull plop to me. Like grade A bull plop. Democrat values kinda shape the media narrative everywhere. They have no shortage of outlets spewing forth the Democrat rhetoric and ideologies and values. Like I don't even understand where that statement comes from. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how Democrat messaging is losing.
Republicans control both houses of congress. Obamacare is slowly becoming more popular, but definitely not due to messaging wins. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the chopping block literally every year. Access to education is getting harder and harder.
Basic economic and quality of life improvements are becoming basically impossible to get done outside of blue states. In basically every case we're in the middle of a rearguard action negotiating the sizes of the loses to bedrock programs that underpin our ideals as a party.
Social issues we're making some progress on, but the Democratic party is a lagging indicator on public sentiment on those. Except on things like abortion rights, which we're still losing state by state and not actually fighting that hard to fix federally.
I love that we're the party with policy wonks that are actually connected to reality. But to huge swaths of the american people, the stuff that we want is either unrealistic or actively antithetical to their idea of how things ought to be. The Right is much better at appealing to people who vote with their guts, and it wins them governorships and control of congress. We're losing that battle and we have been for a very long time because we're not contesting it outside of safe states and national races.
even in blue states we aren't necessarily winning the messaging war
Washington's schools are criminally underfunded (and I mean that in a literal sense--our school system is so broke that the supreme court declared it unconstitutional) and people still refuse to acknowledge that it's time for more taxes
our Democratic legislature still spent twenty of our state's most prosperous years slashing the budget and acted surprised when it turned out they wouldn't be able to pay for basic services when the recession hit
the party is shit at convincing the public that taxes and social programs are a good thing and it's weird that anyone would argue with this
It's probably a mis-match in which planks we're messaging. Dems are very very good at messaging the social side of the platform: diversity, equality, inclusion, healthcare, etc.
We're just terrible at explaining taxes and law. Which, to be fair, isn't a Dem problem so much as it is the fact that these topics are incredibly nuanced, take a good deal of education and familiarity to understand, and take more time to explain than fits in a quippy soundbite. We can all gree that we need better funding for education, but it's much harder to get voter buy-in on where that cash is going to come from. Which is probably why both presidential candidates are going with a flavor of "raising taxes on the super-rich".
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
I'm personally far from pro-Clinton. My stance is that she is the best of the bunch right now, not that she is the best candidate to pull the democratic party or the country. Sanders could have swayed me if his platform was a bit more realistic and considerably less hostile.
But lets be honest, Sanders himself isn't concerned with making a wide tent. His hope was to emulate GOP practices of whipping up a populist, fanatical base with his ideology and relying upon motivated turnout rather than global appeal. This time round that didn't work out for him, but historically that route has been shown to work on plenty of cases.
I don't know that I agree with your characterization of Sanders' approach. Frankly, I think after the surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire he wasn't really sure what to do and just kind of kept doing the things that worked there.
Undeniably, his appeal was populist. This is clearly the case. The level of support he garnered based on flatly stating progressive values was surprising to basically everybody, including him and Clinton. For him, that meant he was left as the primary opposition to the assumed nominee, while for Clinton it meant that pushing her rhetoric bigger and further left clearly had an audience. One of the two candidates already had a world class campaign operation, and people much more experienced in reading an electorate, and it showed in how things played out over the primary.
Ultimately, Sanders was and is a vehicle for something that was already there much more than he's a driver. That not everyone is on board with it isn't an inherent weakness of his, but more a reflection of the reality that movements aren't all encompassing, and change makes people nervous. But for all the hand-wringing around these parts and elsewhere on the internet that Sanders is going to destroy the party or whatever, he's still really damn popular among Democrats, even ones that voted for Clinton. So the perception that he's a divisive, bellicose outsider isn't nearly as widespread as it might seem from these discussions.
Sanders has been really good at something that is a deep weakness of Clinton; Selling Democratic ideals. Clinton is great when she gets down in the weeds to discuss systems and approaches, but she really struggles at making people who aren't already on board agree with her and no amount of technocratic savvy is going to help there. In this, Clinton is definitely not unique, as it's an issue that Democrats have had for a generation. We suck at selling our ideas, even when they're really good ideas. And we start from the possible and not the ideal, which means we're negotiating from weakness right from the beginning.
The party needs Sanderses just as much as it needs Clintons. In terms of wonk vs evangelist, I'd say we actually need Sanderses more right now, because we're losing on messaging pretty much across the board. I think Clinton will make a fine president in terms of working within the system, but I'd love it if she could take some more cues from Sanders and Obama and Biden on messaging. Working small is sometimes necessary, but selling big is absolutely crucial when your big ideas are as much better than the other guys' as ours are.
I don't see this at all. In fact, I'd say this has been a major weakness of his. He's good at selling his own ideals. He's failing to sell the rest of the Democratic package.
Sanders' platform is not the platonic ideal of the Democratic party, it's specific issues within the platform, some being sold alot harder then others.
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
I'm personally far from pro-Clinton. My stance is that she is the best of the bunch right now, not that she is the best candidate to pull the democratic party or the country. Sanders could have swayed me if his platform was a bit more realistic and considerably less hostile.
But lets be honest, Sanders himself isn't concerned with making a wide tent. His hope was to emulate GOP practices of whipping up a populist, fanatical base with his ideology and relying upon motivated turnout rather than global appeal. This time round that didn't work out for him, but historically that route has been shown to work on plenty of cases.
I don't know that I agree with your characterization of Sanders' approach. Frankly, I think after the surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire he wasn't really sure what to do and just kind of kept doing the things that worked there.
Undeniably, his appeal was populist. This is clearly the case. The level of support he garnered based on flatly stating progressive values was surprising to basically everybody, including him and Clinton. For him, that meant he was left as the primary opposition to the assumed nominee, while for Clinton it meant that pushing her rhetoric bigger and further left clearly had an audience. One of the two candidates already had a world class campaign operation, and people much more experienced in reading an electorate, and it showed in how things played out over the primary.
Ultimately, Sanders was and is a vehicle for something that was already there much more than he's a driver. That not everyone is on board with it isn't an inherent weakness of his, but more a reflection of the reality that movements aren't all encompassing, and change makes people nervous. But for all the hand-wringing around these parts and elsewhere on the internet that Sanders is going to destroy the party or whatever, he's still really damn popular among Democrats, even ones that voted for Clinton. So the perception that he's a divisive, bellicose outsider isn't nearly as widespread as it might seem from these discussions.
Sanders has been really good at something that is a deep weakness of Clinton; Selling Democratic ideals. Clinton is great when she gets down in the weeds to discuss systems and approaches, but she really struggles at making people who aren't already on board agree with her and no amount of technocratic savvy is going to help there. In this, Clinton is definitely not unique, as it's an issue that Democrats have had for a generation. We suck at selling our ideas, even when they're really good ideas. And we start from the possible and not the ideal, which means we're negotiating from weakness right from the beginning.
The party needs Sanderses just as much as it needs Clintons. In terms of wonk vs evangelist, I'd say we actually need Sanderses more right now, because we're losing on messaging pretty much across the board. I think Clinton will make a fine president in terms of working within the system, but I'd love it if she could take some more cues from Sanders and Obama and Biden on messaging. Working small is sometimes necessary, but selling big is absolutely crucial when your big ideas are as much better than the other guys' as ours are.
How the fuck are Democrats losing on messaging across the board!?
That sounds like while bunch of bull plop to me. Like grade A bull plop. Democrat values kinda shape the media narrative everywhere. They have no shortage of outlets spewing forth the Democrat rhetoric and ideologies and values. Like I don't even understand where that statement comes from. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how Democrat messaging is losing.
Republicans control both houses of congress. Obamacare is slowly becoming more popular, but definitely not due to messaging wins. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the chopping block literally every year. Access to education is getting harder and harder.
Basic economic and quality of life improvements are becoming basically impossible to get done outside of blue states. In basically every case we're in the middle of a rearguard action negotiating the sizes of the loses to bedrock programs that underpin our ideals as a party.
Social issues we're making some progress on, but the Democratic party is a lagging indicator on public sentiment on those. Except on things like abortion rights, which we're still losing state by state and not actually fighting that hard to fix federally.
I love that we're the party with policy wonks that are actually connected to reality. But to huge swaths of the american people, the stuff that we want is either unrealistic or actively antithetical to their idea of how things ought to be. The Right is much better at appealing to people who vote with their guts, and it wins them governorships and control of congress. We're losing that battle and we have been for a very long time because we're not contesting it outside of safe states and national races.
even in blue states we aren't necessarily winning the messaging war
Washington's schools are criminally underfunded (and I mean that in a literal sense--our school system is so broke that the supreme court declared it unconstitutional) and people still refuse to acknowledge that it's time for more taxes
our Democratic legislature still spent twenty of our state's most prosperous years slashing the budget and acted surprised when it turned out they wouldn't be able to pay for basic services when the recession hit
the party is shit at convincing the public that taxes and social programs are a good thing and it's weird that anyone would argue with this
It's probably a mis-match in which planks we're messaging. Dems are very very good at messaging the social side of the platform: diversity, equality, inclusion, healthcare, etc.
We're just terrible at explaining taxes and law. Which, to be fair, isn't a Dem problem so much as it is the fact that these topics are incredibly nuanced, take a good deal of education and familiarity to understand, and take more time to explain than fits in a quippy soundbite. We can all gree that we need better funding for education, but it's much harder to get voter buy-in on where that cash is going to come from. Which is probably why both presidential candidates are going with a flavor of "raising taxes on the super-rich".
Yep, pretty much this.
The concept of enjoying paying taxes because you realize the good they do is basically impossible to sell.
It takes way too much nuanced understanding of what's going on around you and takes way too long to explain when the other side can just say "Taxation is theft" over and over again quickly and easily.
That's a messaging war that basically can't be won at this point.
The concept of enjoying paying taxes because you realize the good they do is basically impossible to sell.
It takes way too much nuanced understanding of what's going on around you and takes way too long to explain when the other side can just say "Taxation is theft" over and over again quickly and easily.
That's a messaging war that basically can't be won at this point.
Especially when most people who would actually most substantially benefit from that system are either racial minorities (already largely with the Dems) or socially conservative such that they value reactionary social policy/pseudo-tribalism more than beneficial economic policy and/or low education enough that they don't understand the benefits.
The solution is to move the party to the center more to insure we get majorities that allow the center of the Democratic party to become the effective center of political solutions and/or out politic the remainder of the country in enacting policies. Sanders was counterproductive in both areas. We don't need a Tea Party, we need a coalition and that will not be made up solely of liberal ideologues. Not having a public option sucks but not as much as not having an Affordable Care Act
Honestly where Bernie failed is he never tried to make an overture to Hillary voters. For all the "oh clinton just wants my vote versus trump!" What did Bernie offer dem moderates other than casting us as the villain to the true party he would usher in?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
But people say Clinton needs to take on Bernie's platform to appeal to his voters, but Bernie never offered an Olive branch to try and persuade the clinton voters to him at any point. Its not even "I'm like clinton" its "have an appeal to people you are losing."
They both appeal to very different voters. Which is good and bad.
Clinton is aiming for middle aged voters like you.
Bernie is aiming for younger voters.
Clinton tried to be appeal to Bernie's platform and demographics, but it ended up being extremely condescending (seriously man, it was almost offensive). What should Bernie appeal to? Lower taxes? What's going to make him look good to a middle aged or senior voter? "Oh hey yeah, your kids can finally start giving you grand kids, and maybe get a house, and maybe won't die in poverty if they have a heart attack or get cancer in their lives." That doesn't really resonate with anyone outside of the 20-30 demographics. Barely 30. too Anyone who's 30 and gets hit with that hefty $20 a month tax is going to be upset I guess. I don't know, there's really nothing he's done that's extremely upsetting or deserves an olive branch other than "hey this is not how the US has been for the past 20 years.. huh I haven't seen anything like that since the New Deal."
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
But for me some more moderate ideas or not claiming establishment democrats are the problem with everything would have at least done more. And maybe not pivoting to his stump on literally every issue.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
What? Obama was ahead on pledged in 08
We named the party after democracy, after all. We're pretty attached to it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This presumes the candidate in question has selected delegates that can be persuaded away from their candidate.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
(I think he was joking)
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Especially since there are other candidates running, I agree. Many races are going to effectively be on Presidential coattails and its better to have a losing candidate that doesn't hurt you too badly than one that pulls you down
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I agree with all of this, except for the idea that Cruz wouldn't be bringing them down nearly if not exactly as badly.
Eh the people who really hate Clinton are generally already republicans. I mean I know people like to make a big deal out of their one friend who is totally a life long dem but hates Clinton totes for sure. But statistically that is just not a big factor in any poll ever conducted.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
I generally trend towards the center, which is now very much solidly Democrat territory, and seek good governance over major initiatives. I want to see platforms rooted in pragmatic and realistic goals to make the country better rather than un-researched or radical changes.
Both Hilary and Sanders have platforms I like, but only Hilary really has a shot of getting hers done. Also, Sanders and his supporters have pretty consistently told me at nearly every turn that if I'm not all in on solving every problem RIGHT NOW I am part of the problem, when there is about 0% chance of any of his platform actually passing. While I like having his voice in the conversation on national politics, he has pretty solidly driven me away from ever wanting to vote for him (and that was before doing any digging on his voting history). Looking at his past relationship with the democratic party, he is such a non-team player there is no way he could get consensus to actually do any of his proposed platform vene if he controlled both houses. Maybe something tenuously approved, but I really doubt the Democratic party as a whole would even want to work with him.
Running on a platform of fundamentally transforming a political party requires convincing the party that fundamental transformation is necessary.
Who knew?
Appealing to people that are already "[candidate] voters" is pretty pointless unless you're [candidate]. Because "vote for me, I'm just like that other person you're planning on voting for instead" just isn't an effective way to sway voters.
If you're up against someone with the unprecedented level of support and advantage that Clinton had going into this thing, the best play is to present your vision and draw contrasts with the frontrunner that resonate with potential voters. Which is exactly what Sanders was doing for most of the campaign.
I'll definitely agree that parts of the Sanders campaign have been very poorly run, but this was not one of them. Offering another Clinton-esque option was not going to peel off support from Clinton. That's not how it works.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Obviously how messages are delivered doesn't matter at all.
Or
Maybe it was the case that a not insignificant number of people felt that Bernies message was "Fuck you, vote for me and be a real Democrat you borderline Republican shithead"
Which, I don't know if Bernie himself ever said anything like that. But god damn some of his supporters were frothing lunatics. I think that is a sort of inevitable part of any political movement with the kind of tent revival energy that Bernie's has. When you're whipping a crowd into a frenzy over injustice, you got to be careful about how frenzied they get.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I'm personally far from pro-Clinton. My stance is that she is the best of the bunch right now, not that she is the best candidate to pull the democratic party or the country. Sanders could have swayed me if his platform was a bit more realistic and considerably less hostile.
But lets be honest, Sanders himself isn't concerned with making a wide tent. His hope was to emulate GOP practices of whipping up a populist, fanatical base with his ideology and relying upon motivated turnout rather than global appeal. This time round that didn't work out for him, but historically that route has been shown to work on plenty of cases.
But people say Clinton needs to take on Bernie's platform to appeal to his voters, but Bernie never offered an Olive branch to try and persuade the clinton voters to him at any point. Its not even "I'm like clinton" its "have an appeal to people you are losing."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Because for the first half of her initial term the only thing she's going to be able to do as President is just live in the white house again.
Yeah, I mean, Sanders isn't trying to be everyone's first choice. No one is or can do that. He's appealing to specific groups and interests. There just weren't enough of them.
Well and put up a SCOTUS justice you know that little thing we currently don't have that everyone has forgotten?
pleasepaypreacher.net
His whole campaign was built on the argument that the Democratic Party needs to be fundamentally transformed. That meant that he had to make two arguments:
* To the party members who don't see the need for sweeping, fundamental change, he needed to make the case for that change to them.
* To party members who, while friendly to the need for change, were concerned with losing gains made in the chaos of that change, he needed to reassure them that they wouldn't be forgotten.
He failed miserably at both, instead focusing more on an insurgent campaign built on the independent vote. Is it any surprise that wound up failing?
Well, the math on that doesn't really change at all
Yeah, that's not happening before the midterms either.
The rhetoric does, they claimed america has to have their say, if america has their say and Hillary wins then they have to come up with a new excuse. Hillary Clinton will decide who the new justice is one way or another in her first two years if she's elected.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't know that I agree with your characterization of Sanders' approach. Frankly, I think after the surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire he wasn't really sure what to do and just kind of kept doing the things that worked there.
Undeniably, his appeal was populist. This is clearly the case. The level of support he garnered based on flatly stating progressive values was surprising to basically everybody, including him and Clinton. For him, that meant he was left as the primary opposition to the assumed nominee, while for Clinton it meant that pushing her rhetoric bigger and further left clearly had an audience. One of the two candidates already had a world class campaign operation, and people much more experienced in reading an electorate, and it showed in how things played out over the primary.
Ultimately, Sanders was and is a vehicle for something that was already there much more than he's a driver. That not everyone is on board with it isn't an inherent weakness of his, but more a reflection of the reality that movements aren't all encompassing, and change makes people nervous. But for all the hand-wringing around these parts and elsewhere on the internet that Sanders is going to destroy the party or whatever, he's still really damn popular among Democrats, even ones that voted for Clinton. So the perception that he's a divisive, bellicose outsider isn't nearly as widespread as it might seem from these discussions.
Sanders has been really good at something that is a deep weakness of Clinton; Selling Democratic ideals. Clinton is great when she gets down in the weeds to discuss systems and approaches, but she really struggles at making people who aren't already on board agree with her and no amount of technocratic savvy is going to help there. In this, Clinton is definitely not unique, as it's an issue that Democrats have had for a generation. We suck at selling our ideas, even when they're really good ideas. And we start from the possible and not the ideal, which means we're negotiating from weakness right from the beginning.
The party needs Sanderses just as much as it needs Clintons. In terms of wonk vs evangelist, I'd say we actually need Sanderses more right now, because we're losing on messaging pretty much across the board. I think Clinton will make a fine president in terms of working within the system, but I'd love it if she could take some more cues from Sanders and Obama and Biden on messaging. Working small is sometimes necessary, but selling big is absolutely crucial when your big ideas are as much better than the other guys' as ours are.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
All you need is the senate.
Beyond that, this seems like sour grapes? It's not like Bernie will be any luckier with the house, so the "she can live in the white house again " snipe seems unnecessary
I don't doubt she'll decide on her own nominee. I also don't doubt that a Republican controlled Senate will do everything they can to block her nominee.
I don't think this is true. I think that it's much more accurate to say that Sanders stuck to his message regardless of the room he was in because he's a true believer in that message with no experience or interest in changing what he is saying based on his current audience. He did plenty of outreach to the demographics he was losing, it just wasn't terribly effective. In large part that was due to how deeply ingrained Clinton already was in those populations and the Democratic electorate as a whole, but it was also due to the fact that Sanders' pitch just didn't resonate enough to get a majority of them to switch to his side. That happens in every election, especially primaries where candidates who basically agree with each other are competing for the same votes.
Clinton is much better at being everything to everyone, at least within the party. In the classic politico sense. And she has people around her who are very experienced at helping candidates do that thing. Sanders isn't everything to everyone, he's Bernie Goddamn Sanders whether he's in a room filled with hedge fund managers or homeless people, and that is a big part of his appeal for his supporters.
Ardent Clinton supporters weren't going to jump ship because Sanders changed a piece of his platform here or there, and populations that were already leaning her direction weren't going to flip because the other guy started sounding more like she did.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
How the fuck are Democrats losing on messaging across the board!?
That sounds likea whole bunch of bull plop to me. Like grade A bull plop. Democrat values kinda shape the media narrative everywhere. They have no shortage of outlets spewing forth the Democrat rhetoric and ideologies and values. Like I don't even understand where that statement comes from. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how Democrat messaging is losing.
Nobody is saying that he had to sound more like Clinton. Hell, he didn't even have to really change his core platform, because it did resonate.
What he needed to do us realize that a coalition party demands coalition building, and that in turn means getting multiple factions to align together. Which, quite often, means showing them that their issues will be a plank in your platform. And that's where he really fell flat.
With a Clinton vs Trump matchup, we're favored to take the Senate. Schumer will then kill the filibuster, or at least the easy filibuster, on nominees with the new rules of the Senate which can't be themselves filibustered and are majority only.
Its also entirely conceivable with Clinton vs Trump that we can swing the House if Dems aren't complacent.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Republicans control both houses of congress. Obamacare is slowly becoming more popular, but definitely not due to messaging wins. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on the chopping block literally every year. Access to education is getting harder and harder.
Basic economic and quality of life improvements are becoming basically impossible to get done outside of blue states. In basically every case we're in the middle of a rearguard action negotiating the sizes of the loses to bedrock programs that underpin our ideals as a party.
Social issues we're making some progress on, but the Democratic party is a lagging indicator on public sentiment on those. Except on things like abortion rights, which we're still losing state by state and not actually fighting that hard to fix federally.
I love that we're the party with policy wonks that are actually connected to reality. But to huge swaths of the american people, the stuff that we want is either unrealistic or actively antithetical to their idea of how things ought to be. The Right is much better at appealing to people who vote with their guts, and it wins them governorships and control of congress. We're losing that battle and we have been for a very long time because we're not contesting it outside of safe states and national races.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
even in blue states we aren't necessarily winning the messaging war
Washington's schools are criminally underfunded (and I mean that in a literal sense--our school system is so broke that the supreme court declared it unconstitutional) and people still refuse to acknowledge that it's time for more taxes
our Democratic legislature still spent twenty of our state's most prosperous years slashing the budget and acted surprised when it turned out they wouldn't be able to pay for basic services when the recession hit
the party is shit at convincing the public that taxes and social programs are a good thing and it's weird that anyone would argue with this
Exactly. Bernie is an ideological candidate trying to lead a coalition party. It's why he played poorly with discrete coalition members with discrete interests but did extraordinarily well with unaffiliated ideologues.
It's probably a mis-match in which planks we're messaging. Dems are very very good at messaging the social side of the platform: diversity, equality, inclusion, healthcare, etc.
We're just terrible at explaining taxes and law. Which, to be fair, isn't a Dem problem so much as it is the fact that these topics are incredibly nuanced, take a good deal of education and familiarity to understand, and take more time to explain than fits in a quippy soundbite. We can all gree that we need better funding for education, but it's much harder to get voter buy-in on where that cash is going to come from. Which is probably why both presidential candidates are going with a flavor of "raising taxes on the super-rich".
I don't see this at all. In fact, I'd say this has been a major weakness of his. He's good at selling his own ideals. He's failing to sell the rest of the Democratic package.
Sanders' platform is not the platonic ideal of the Democratic party, it's specific issues within the platform, some being sold alot harder then others.
Yep, pretty much this.
The concept of enjoying paying taxes because you realize the good they do is basically impossible to sell.
It takes way too much nuanced understanding of what's going on around you and takes way too long to explain when the other side can just say "Taxation is theft" over and over again quickly and easily.
That's a messaging war that basically can't be won at this point.
Especially when most people who would actually most substantially benefit from that system are either racial minorities (already largely with the Dems) or socially conservative such that they value reactionary social policy/pseudo-tribalism more than beneficial economic policy and/or low education enough that they don't understand the benefits.
The solution is to move the party to the center more to insure we get majorities that allow the center of the Democratic party to become the effective center of political solutions and/or out politic the remainder of the country in enacting policies. Sanders was counterproductive in both areas. We don't need a Tea Party, we need a coalition and that will not be made up solely of liberal ideologues. Not having a public option sucks but not as much as not having an Affordable Care Act
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
They both appeal to very different voters. Which is good and bad.
Clinton is aiming for middle aged voters like you.
Bernie is aiming for younger voters.
Clinton tried to be appeal to Bernie's platform and demographics, but it ended up being extremely condescending (seriously man, it was almost offensive). What should Bernie appeal to? Lower taxes? What's going to make him look good to a middle aged or senior voter? "Oh hey yeah, your kids can finally start giving you grand kids, and maybe get a house, and maybe won't die in poverty if they have a heart attack or get cancer in their lives." That doesn't really resonate with anyone outside of the 20-30 demographics. Barely 30. too Anyone who's 30 and gets hit with that hefty $20 a month tax is going to be upset I guess. I don't know, there's really nothing he's done that's extremely upsetting or deserves an olive branch other than "hey this is not how the US has been for the past 20 years.. huh I haven't seen anything like that since the New Deal."
But for me some more moderate ideas or not claiming establishment democrats are the problem with everything would have at least done more. And maybe not pivoting to his stump on literally every issue.
pleasepaypreacher.net