General Question

Rarebear's avatar

Do Sanders supporters around here hate Senator Warren now that she has endorsed Secretary Clinton?

Asked by Rarebear (25159points) June 11th, 2016 from iPhone

There is vitriol on Twitter.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

60 Answers

syz's avatar

Nope.

Seek's avatar

I don’t know how I feel about that specifically yet. It is unexpected.

The whole fiasco is depressing and disappointing.

dappled_leaves's avatar

Nope. I won’t even hate her if she becomes Clinton’s running mate (which that Rachel Maddow interview seemed to indicate might eventually happen).

It was inevitable that Warren would endorse whoever became the Democratic candidate. It’s the right thing to do for her, for the party, and for the country.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Twitter is not exactly known for well-thought-out analysis and temperate political discussion.

There was an interesting discussion on NPR yesterday about just exactly this. Basically Clinton does not ALL the Sanders supporters; just enough. Many Sanders supporters are fair-weather supporters anyway and only got involved because of his novelty. They may not vote for Clinton, but they definitely won’t vote for Trump, so that’s not a bad outcome for Clinton. Half a loaf is better than none.

But on a higher level – if your political leaning is based on hate…. then I’m not sure your vote is valuable.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

She’s my senator. I voted for her. She was a huge disappointment when she didn’t endorse Sanders. She lost a ton of people around that time. The huge backlash happened on the morning after the MA primary. We felt a bit betrayed.

But the fact that she has now come out to enthusiastically endorse Clinton is too much. We know what she has to say about Clinton. And Warren’s priorities and positions correlate so much with Sanders, her silence was betrayal. Her endorsement is really ridiculous.

I don’t hate her. I just don’t support her, and I have lost a ton of respect for her.

Rarebear's avatar

So I take it you won’t vote for her the next time around when she runs again (assuming she’s not picked for VEEP which I don’t think she will be)?

ragingloli's avatar

“You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Rarebear: “So I take it you won’t vote for her the next time around when she runs again”

If she has a challenger who is progressive, I will certainly vote for the other candidate. Absolutely.

johnpowell's avatar

I really liked Sanders and really love Warren. No real need to hate. I like Clinton too.

Reminds me of “Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line.”

Not sure if this has ever been truer.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Betrayal! HUGE backlash!

Tens and dozens of people ARE OUTRAGED that Warren will not be actively campaigning for Trump!

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

^ You appear to have a very difficult time following the plot.

filmfann's avatar

I am Facebook friends with a couple Bernieites who have posted their complete disgust with Senator Warren.

Rarebear's avatar

Thanks everybody.

MrGrimm888's avatar

All politicians should be hated. Or at least NEVER trusted….

MrGrimm888's avatar

Smiling faces tell lies….

ucme's avatar

I like Clinton too”
Hahahahaha, stay classy

stanleybmanly's avatar

Of course she’s going to endorse her party’s nominee, barring extraordinary circumstances. The best of our politicians are trapped like the rest of us

LostInParadise's avatar

The major objective is to defeat Trump. Warren took the correct first step toward doing that. I support Sanders and voted for him in our primary, but the time comes when your candidate is defeated and you need to make adjustments.

tinyfaery's avatar

I’m very disappointed, but I blame myself. Nothing in America will ever change. The political money machine is in control and no one is willing to tear down the establishment. Nothing will ever change. This too many egos and too much money is at stake.

stanleybmanly's avatar

LITERALLY, what choice does she have? You know people probably beat her to death daily with “Who do you endorse?”

gorillapaws's avatar

For me it is all about policy. Is she going to keep fighting with all of her energy to fix the economic problems in the US? IMO the biggest existential threat to the USA is a complete collapse of the middle class (far more than terrorism, or even a Trump presidency). If she can get Clinton to betray her Wall Street puppet masters, and enact the legislation that is necessary to protect our economy from another collapse/bailout, then Sen. Warren still has my full support.

Zaku's avatar

Disappointment, not hate.

Zaku's avatar

@stanleybmanly What do you mean, “what choice does she have?” Why would she need to endorse the corporate-pawn candidate? Why couldn’t she say, “I endorse the candidate who suggests breaking up banks that are too big to fail?” or any of the thousand other honest reasons why everyone should endorse Sanders over Clinton?

Why would she feel compelled to endorse Clinton, except because of political blackmail / threats or other corrupt manipulations? (I’d like to know what you think the reason would be.)

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Zaku I mean Clinton IS going to be the nominee. It IS settled. I doubt very much that Warren is jumping for joy. Neither am I. But that IS no longer the point. Bernie too IS going to endorse Clinton. A lot of my friends find Clinton too repugnant to vote for, and will go with Stein. They are die hard Bernie supporters. Fortunately they and I are residents of states that Clinton is going to sweep with no problem. I may well vote for Stein myself based on that fact. But if I lived in the Redlands I would vote for Clinton just as Sanders and Warren are going to. Believe me, the both of them are hoping that you do as well.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@stanleybmanly: “LITERALLY, what choice does she have?”

She literally had thousands of other choices, and she chose the most disturbing one. For starters, she lost the respect of most of us when she kept silent when it really mattered. Here was someone who represented something worth saving in the Democratic party. She was the anti-Clinton, and she sat there during an unprecedented movement to save the party and have its future be close to what she has been saying is what she feels is important. She kept silent. And her silence was an act itself.

Then, we have her actual endorsement – an endorsement that came without conditions, without caveat, and before Sanders had even left the “race”. She could have done anything but what she did. She could have waited until the convention (you know, when Clinton actually gets the delegate votes required to win). Then, she could have walked in with Sanders and put pressure on the party to make concessions re:positions and platform.

Instead, she has enthusiastically given and early endorsement to someone who represents her polar opposite – someone who she has actually called out due to her being the thing she is fighting against. She demanded nothing, and abandoned her supporters and the future of the Democratic party.

So, her actions are quite puzzling. It has to be the last thing any of us would have expected from her.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch There’s nothing puzzling at all in Warren’s behavior, and this is neither a betrayal of her values nor an early endorsement. Clinton has the delegates. THE RACE FOR THE NOMINATION IS OVER. I can’t understand why people don’t get it. You MUST play the game if you’re to wear the label Democrat.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@stanleybmanly It’s not really about “wearing the label Democrat”. Many of Sanders’ supporters were never Democrats – nor was Sanders himself until this race. It’s about seizing the only chance to defeat Trump. Warren is not be in complete agreement with Clinton. Sanders is not in complete agreement with Clinton. But BOTH will support Clinton’s run for the presidency, because that is the wisest and best course of action for the country.

People who refuse to even consider voting for Clinton because she is not the perfect candidate are incredibly selfish. Having a Republican presidency right now will have real world consequences for people who are already struggling. It’s terrific for people who live in blue states and make tidy incomes to stamp their feet and say “My candidate or no candidate”. I’m sure they feel very good about themselves, knowing their precious integrity is intact. They won’t be the ones suffering if Trump takes the White House.

Zaku's avatar

@stanleybmanly Your capitalized truths just look like cynicism and resignation and folly, to me. In no way do they explain why Warren would need to endorse Clinton, especially not before the convention is over. As has been repeatedly pointed out by Sanders and others, the process for selection of a Democratic Party candidates includes a convention, which isn’t over till it’s over. With so many reasons to prefer Sanders to Clinton, “endorsing” Clinton looks pointless to me, except to signify surrender to the corporate corruption and false narrative Clinton stands for. Sanders is all about “we don’t have to play the game” and even if Clinton manages to get the nomination, it’s not going to change that at all. Having no choice and no voice is extremely undemocratic, and represents the problem with the system. That’s why 11,000 or so Sanders supporters have just offered themselves as candidates for all sorts of government posts – to restore actual democracy, where elected officials actually act as people with voices and not as pawns of a monolithic party, and certainly not a corporate-bought monolithic party. The more the Democratic Party demands monolithic alignment, the more clearly its members are non-democratic, and the less legitimacy that party has. I think if in fact the Dems fail to have Sanders as their candidate, they’re going to be replaced as the leftmost viable choice by a new Progressive Party.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Zaku that’s the dream of probably most of us, and the party knows it! But of course those who benefit from the entrenched system have arranged things such that ANY upstart organization poised to undermine the present setup goes nowhere. This is why both Trump & Sanders did not run as anything other than Republican or Democrat. My capitalized truths are cynicism, but not folly. And the proof lies in the fact that the people we believe in adhere to them. I believe in both Sanders and Warren, and refuse to accept that her integrity is compromised one bit through her endorsement of the lesser demon with the nomination in its pocket. Sanders is correct in staying in right to the wire as a cudgel to force the corporate serving party leftwards. But when he throws in the towel and endorses Clinton, I plan to do precisely what he is certain to reccomend.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@stanleybmanly Well put. I agree with all of that.

Zaku's avatar

@stanleybmanly The glue that holds the corruption together is people’s words in such conversations. The more people stop talking about corruption as truth or reality or inevitable, the sooner it will dissolve. It looks to me like the corporate corruption cookie has started to crumble, and the more politicians and others who refuse to endorse that corruption, the better. I expect Warren had her political reasons for the endorsement, but I wish she would have said what they were candidly. There are plenty of Democrats still endorsing Sanders, so I don’t see why Warren needed to endorse Clinton at this point, and I’m curious why she did. Moreover, are you really endorsing that Democrats not be allowed to prefer whichever candidate before the convention is done?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Zaku I certainly hope Warren will explain her reasoning and motivation and SOON. I will tell you this. In view of her positions and declarations on other matters, I’m damned sure not going to kick her to the curb over anything as paltry as this regardless of her explanation. I am indeed a cynic, but in this landscape, the heroes are very few and quite far between.

stanleybmanly's avatar

what do you folks think about Stein?

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

^ I’m voting for her (unless something happens and Sanders is the Dem nominee).

Zaku's avatar

I agree that Warren is probably still one of the best people in office, and I expect that the reason for her endorsement is some sort of behind-the-scenes coercion, rather than any real reason to be concerned about her.

As for Stein, she seems like a good Green Party representative – the only negative things I know about her are that the Green Party is a victim of the two-party system and gets less attention and support than Sanders, and that sometimes when I read about her or the Green Party, it seems there’s some sourness about that. I’m very environment-oriented, and know of know disagreement I have with her policies, so if it were up to me & she could have Congressional support too, sure, Jill Stein for president… But since we have a lame two-party, single-vote, system, and Stein & the Greens have so little mainstream attention, there seems little point unless/until there’s no way to vote for Sanders, and probably no way to make her a possible candidate in this election unless she & Sanders somehow joined into a 3rd ticket. I’d almost prefer Sanders/Gabbard though, just because I think it might unite more types of Americans and lead to more supporting votes in Congress, mainstream conversations, etc.

dappled_leaves's avatar

A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, no matter how much one supports her platform.

Like it or not, you do have a two-party system. If you want your vote to matter, vote for one of the two parties that have any shot at winning the election. Or you may as well be voting for the party you don’t prefer. It comes to the same thing.

Certainly, Donald Trump would like for liberals to vote for Stein. Can you blame him?

Seek's avatar

If I can’t vote for the person I prefer, my vote already doesn’t matter.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Zaku the really insidious thing about our political system is in its unfailing ability to grind down idealism. I look at Clinton and can’t help wondering at what point she chose wealth & power over frumpy consistent decency in the vein of guys like Bernie & Even Carter. Was it after she saw what happened to her proposals for universal health care? Even now I’m still surprised by the very deep levels of bitterness in some of my friends over Bill & Hillary. The system will either co-opt you or steer you off to Quixote like irrelevance.

Seek's avatar

@stanleybmanly – Ha. She’s a Goldwater republican. She never was an idealist.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You don’t think so? Never?

dappled_leaves's avatar

@Seek “If I can’t vote for the person I prefer, my vote already doesn’t matter.”

So, you only vote when you personally like the choices? Do you not care about how the outcome affects other people than you?

ragingloli's avatar

Thinking like that is why you will never overcome your 2 party system.
@dappled_leaves people like you are the reason your 2 party system will never die.

The reason why other countries have systems with more than 2 parties is that people DO vote for the parties and candidates they agree with, and not against parties/candidates they do not want in power.
And then you have people trying to guilt you into falling in line.
Voting for the people you want in power is the essence of democracy.
Once you are forced, bullied, tricked, or otherwise coerced into voting for someone you do not want in power, you destroy democracy, and turn it into a farce.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@ragingloli That sounds great on paper, but I have lived through the reality that is a split liberal vote for the last fifteen years, and I am grateful that we finally pulled our shit together and have a liberal PM. I agree that voting for the party of choice is one way to keep a multiple party system alive, but let’s save your kind of thinking for years in which the populist candidate is not the actual Antichrist, ok?

ragingloli's avatar

@dappled_leaves
you are only in that situation because of the 2 party system.
The reason why your antichrist will get around half of the votes, is because people think there are only 2 choices available, and people vote for the party they have always voted for.

Seek's avatar

@dappled_leaves – I always vote, if only to have my objections a matter of record. It’s the only say in our system that I’m constitutionally obligated to, and it would be folly to waste it.

@ragingloli has already said everything else I wanted to say.

Seek's avatar

I’m so beyond tired of hearing everyone call the candidate they don’t like the Antichrist. Obama was the Antichrist. Kerry was the Antichrist. Bush 2.0 was the Antichrist…

We could use an Antichrist at this point, but we don’t have it. What we have are two candidates: one an overbaked reality television actor, and the other an opportunist Republican.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@ragingloli There are currently 23 political parties in my country at the federal level. I cannot remember the last time we had only two with a substantial share of the vote. In the past four elections, we’ve always had 3–4 influential contenders. I don’t know what country you think I live in, but it is not the US.

@Seek Your “objection” is already a wasted vote. No one is counting your objection. And no, Trump is comparable to neither Reagan nor Bush II. He is infinitely worse, and you should be capable of observing that. You can comfortably ignore everything the media says about him and still observe that.

Seek's avatar

@dappled_leaves – thanks to the two party system and gerrymandering, all of my votes are wasted. I’m in a Republican-leaning town in a Republican leaning county in a Republican leaning district in a state that I’m pretty sure won’t even be a swing state this election season if Hillary is the nominee.

gorillapaws's avatar

@dappled_leaves I think a future where our choices are between a pro-corporate party that is bought and paid-for, and a pro-corporate party with backwards social values is a pretty miserable excuse for a democracy. I blame Clinton supporters for pushing forward a candidate that is objectively more likely to loose to Trump (by a large margin) and putting the Democratic party in such a precarious position.

Jill Stein may get a huge boost if Clinton gets the nomination.

Zaku's avatar

@stanleybmanly “the really insidious thing about our political system is in its unfailing ability to grind down idealism.”
– Unfailing? All the more amazing for Bernie Sanders… it’s had a long time to grind on him…

stanleybmanly's avatar

I know. Rather remarkable

dappled_leaves's avatar

@gorillapaws “Jill Stein may get a huge boost if Clinton gets the nomination.”

That makes absolutely no sense. She has no hope of winning the presidency. Democrats may as well toss their ballots in the gutter. Well done, educated voters!

stanleybmanly's avatar

@dappled leaves I too get frustrated with those folks, and want to rant over it, but I always come up short when the time arrives to fault those refusing to trade principles for pragmatism. And here we confront the great reality that those folks are truly up against it in a land & time where “flexible ethics” line the highway to success. Just because pragmatism is required, doesn’t make it right. Hillary & Obama are both models for more or less principled pragmatism. But you gotta give it to the frumpy Bernies & struggling Seeks who will stand & die before “selling out”. Which reminds me. It’s time to get about the inspiring business of feathering my own nest through the extraction of money from the defenseless public.

gorillapaws's avatar

@dappled_leaves, and @stanleybmanly or you could of course flip it on it’s head. There is no way that Hillary will win without our support. The only hope you have to defeat Trump is to vote for Stein. See how that works?

stanleybmanly's avatar

I saw how that worked with Nader. It’s the sort of lesson you never forget.

gorillapaws's avatar

@stanleybmanly There’s a significant difference between the 2000 election and today. There are a lot of us who think that Clinton and her cronies have conspired to steal the Democratic primary. This isn’t a case of being sore losers, but of actually believing that there was massive election fraud, and conspiracy within the Democratic leadership.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I understand the differences between today’s race and 2000. My concerns are more about the looming disaster which threatens to outdo Mr. Bush.

gorillapaws's avatar

@stanleybmanly You mean the prospect that all viable political parties are bought and paid for by big business and that there is no party that represents the people. That our votes are being thrown in the trash? Yeah, because that’s the only thing I could imagine that is even worse than the total clusterfuck that a Trump presidency would be.

stanleybmanly's avatar

My point is that there are worse things than the corrupt setup we are compelled to endure, and my strong guess is that Trump’s elevation to the Presidency will more than prove my point. To my mind, my single opportunity to deflect Trump from the White House must not be ignored. I would regard such a waste as tantamount to giving up. Because regardless of the odious reality that is our corrupt political setup, no possible improvement can be anticipated with Trump at the wheel. My concern is that upon his election, our rotten political system will disappear as a matter of prority stacked against the repurcussions of Trump’s obvious shortcomings.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther