General Question

canidmajor's avatar

Rabid Bernie Sanders supporters, now that he has endorsed Clinton, what do you think?

Asked by canidmajor (16818points) July 12th, 2016

I just saw this and have to wonder what some of the more vocal and dedicated (putting it mildly, here) of his fans think about it.
I am a Bernie fan, and am disappointed that he’s not the presumptive nominee, but I personally don’t think that Clinton is the demon some make her out to be.

I really am interested in hearing from Sanders supporters, the conservatives here have made it very plain how they feel.
This is not the question for that, please.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

59 Answers

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

I’ll ignore the “rabid Bernie Sanders supporters”, and instead translate this to “progressives”.

As I have stated here before, I will not be voting for Clinton. Sanders’ endorsement doesn’t change anything for me.

I have tried many times to discuss Clinton, Sanders, and the possible move forward with the conservative Democrats here a few times, and have been met with the usual conservative tactics (“A vote for Jill Stein == a vote for Trump”, “You just want Trump to win!”, etc). I was really hoping that explaining the progressive position might help right/center Democrats understand what Sanders’ candidacy was about, and allow them to provide a legitimate path for Sanders supporters that wouldn’t just mean “Vote for Clinton”.

I have some suggestions for the more conservative Democrats and how to communicate with the left/progressives.

1. “A vote for Stein == a vote for Trump” is not going to fly. It’s not true.
2. Do not…I repeat, do not make the mistake of bringing up Nader and using the Nader myth in an attempt to bully the left into voting for Clinton. We know too much to fall for that.
3. Sanders’ endorsement doesn’t mean that his supporters need to follow his lead because it was not about Bernie Sanders.
4. There are other candidates running for president.
5. It’s possible to vote for Stein or Johnson and be well informed and versed in the “lesser of two evils” model.
6. Some people may choose to vote for Stein or Johnson if they live in a state that is safely going for Clinton. Even as a Clinton supporter, I can’t see why you wouldn’t strongly advocate for this tactic.
7. Remember: Many of us are not Democrats. Don’t make assumptions about our positions. If you are interested in pulling us into your tent, listen more.

I have more to add, but need to step into a brief meeting.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

He’s in club with the rest of em…. Our government and society is easily manipulated.

forestGeek's avatar

Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party. I can’t and won’t vote for Hillary.

Coloma's avatar

Doesn’t matter much to me anyway as a pretty diehard apolitical I won’t be voting anyway. If I really thought Bernie had a snowballs chance in hell to win the election I might have broken my 38 yr. non-voting position but, that’s not going to happen. Still, it is rather shocking he’s endorsing Hilary. That’s the way the fickle political cookie crumbles.

Rarebear's avatar

I agree with @DoNotKnowMuch implication in that the term “rabid Bernie Sanders supporters” is derogatory and should be rephrased. I also agree with most of the points:

1) I hope you’re right

2) We went over this. It’s arguably not a myth.

3) I agree with this

4) I agree with this, but they don’t have a chance of winning

5) I agree with this. Stein rubs me the wrong way as she comes across as arrogant to me (and before you ask, the fact she refers herself as “Dr Jill Stein” on her twitter feed is what does it to me.) Johnson is okay, although I like Weld better.

6) I agree with this also. If you’re in a heavily blue or red state then there is no reason not to vote who you want to. In fact I would encourage people to do so so they can make a point. It’s in the swing states I have a problem with this. Trump honestly and truly would be a frightening disaster, far worse than GWB. GWB did not frighten me, but Trump really does, especially since the proliferation of the alt-right all in for Trump. If someone lives in Ohio, Florida, or North Carolina, and you are not a fascist, you should vote for Clinton. If you’re in New York, Louisiana, Montana or California, vote for who you want to.

7) Agree with this also. I have close friends who are libertarians who find the Republicrats as distasteful as @DoNotKnowMuch does.

Seek's avatar

I think I’m going to go hunt Pokemon and pretend the real world doesn’t exist for a while.

tinyfaery's avatar

I’m not rabid about anything. Still not voting for Clinton. If anything, I believe more and more that the US deserves Trump as PUSA. Bring on WWIII.

canidmajor's avatar

Hahaha, this is really a kick. I used the term “rabid” because it differentiates from those of us who are “supporters who are thoughtful but not needing to carry on against others to have our points of view.” I don’t think it needs to be rephrased, as those of you who are offended, and posting, are exactly the people I am addressing. So it served its intended purpose.
@DoNotKnowMuch: don’t make the mistake of assuming that I am trying to “pull anyone into my tent”, least of all you. You don’t actually know what my tent is, or how I will cast my vote.
You yourself seem to be assuming a lot here.

You assume that the person whom you would have trusted with the role of POTUS isn’t to be trusted to endorse whom he thinks to be the best candidate.

You assume that people who don’t agree with you are are less educated about the issues and all the potential candidates than you are.

You assume that the people who don’t agree with you don’t care as much about their loved ones, their neighbors, their fellow Americans as you do.

You’re wrong on all counts.

Seek's avatar

@Rarebear – but.. .she’s a doctor. Why shouldn’t she introduce herself as a doctor? “Jill Stein” is a common enough name that it’s likely simply @JillStein was taken before she signed up for Twitter anyway.
That said, I’m not a major fan of hers either. Mostly because she has a lot of “I’d like to do this” promises without much of a plan to implement them. And Johnson is the antithesis of what I want. Without Bernie, there’s literally no one left I want to vote for.

Mariah's avatar

It must be such a nice luxury to feel safe enough in the possibility of a Trump world that you can risk him being elected by not voting for his primary opposition, or not vote at all. I’ll be voting to survive and that means a vote for Hillary even though she’s not my absolute favorite. :)

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@canidmajor – ??

@DoNotKnowMuch: “I have some suggestions for the more conservative Democrats and how to communicate with the left/progressives.”

@canidmajor: “don’t make the mistake of assuming that I am trying to “pull anyone into my tent”, least of all you.”

I’m not sure I was talking to you, was I?

@canidmajor: “You assume….”

I’m confused. What are you referring to here? I feel as though you may be responding to a different thread.

I recommend that you reread my comment and confirm that responded to the correct one. Thanks.

Jeruba's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch

> 6. Some people may choose to vote for Stein or Johnson if they live in a state that is safely going for Clinton. Even as a Clinton supporter, I can’t see why you wouldn’t strongly advocate for this tactic.

Isn’t that’s just the thinking that cost the UK its membership in the EU? The outcome is a foregone conclusion, so it’s safe to lodge a protest vote or make a contrary statement? Better think twice.

What scares me the most about the 2016 U.S. election is the possibility that Trump could win exactly that way—by the vote of people who don’t mean it, think he can’t win, and don’t actually support him. That isn’t even the will of the people. It’s a terrible, terrible joke.

Strauss's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch more conservative Democrats
With the Great Polarization over the past 40 or so years, that phrase strikes me as an oxymoron, as does the phrase “progressive Republicans”.~

Aethelwine's avatar

“supporters who are thoughtful but not needing to carry on against others to have our points of view.”

Huh? Aren’t you carrying on against rabid Bernie supporters?

If I can’t vote for Bernie I’ll vote for Jill. I will never vote for the lesser of two evils.

Rarebear's avatar

@Seek I have the same reaction to that as I do when I see someone walking around the airport in scrubs.

Rarebear's avatar

@Yetanotheruser No, it’s not. @DoNotKnowMuch is probably referring to me. I am a Democrat, and I am a small “c” conservative. My own personal views are more libertarian than anything, but I do not call myself that because I think that the libertarians go way too far in many places (namely environmental policy and health care).

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

Another important path I left off the list:

8. It could be argued that the best way to move forward is to hold our nose and vote for Clinton while simultaneously keeping up the pressure on her to keep her from shifting back right again. Sanders’ and his representatives were successful at getting some important things on the Democratic platform.

In my experience, #6 and #8 are the most reasonable arguments Clinton supporters could make to progressives who have spent their adult lives fighting against the Clintons. I’m not necessarily advocating for this path. I’m just suggesting it as a reasonable way that we can resolve a Clinton vote with progressive values.

That said, I am not sure what I would do if I were not a MA resident. We are very Democratic here – and wealthy. Clinton is very popular, and will have no problem winning.

Seek's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch – And now you know why I’m simply depressed. As an active voter in a swing state, I very much feel like I have a gun to my head.

Rarebear's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch I agree with your #8 as well. I don’t agree with everything the progressive wing is pushing for but I do appreciate the fact that they are trying to move the needle.

Rarebear's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch Out of curiosity, and way off topic, how do you feel about Weld? He was your governor.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Rarebear: ”@DoNotKnowMuch Out of curiosity, and way off topic, how do you feel about Weld? He was your governor.”

Not a fan. I’m quite the opposite of a Libertarian. I’m socially and economically left/progressive/socialist/whatever. I wasn’t a fan of Weld. But like I said, MA is very socially “liberal” but fiscally leans conservative due to extreme wealth in the eastern part of the state. The state keeps electing Republican governors.

Rarebear's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch I figured as much. I was just curious. Thanks for answering.

Zaku's avatar

I’m disappointed, because I wanted to see a massive protest and Sanders fighting for a contested convention and possibly winning the nomination.

However, I think Sanders has a very different viewpoint from where he is, and he must have reasons he thinks make sense, so ok.

So I am looking forward to the rest of the “political revolution” plan and the organization to create and elect actual progressive candidates for Congress.

As for Clinton, I don’t think she is a demon, but I do think she is very clearly in the pocket of major corporations, and effectively far right-of-center, pretending unconvincingly to be a progressive. I find her untrustworthy, corrupt, tainted by corporate and foreign donations and by her role in companies such as Walmart and Monsanto. I find her support for the TPP/TPIP/etc and fracking and private prisons and on and on unacceptable. I see her as basically a corporate-pawn Republican who is now the Democratic Party nominee, which is possible because of how batshit-crazy the Republican Party has become.

Because of the above and the role the DNC has played in this primary, the Democratic Party I now see as irredeemably corrupt, unless/until actual progressives take it over and kick the corporate pawn corrupt scum the #$&% out.

I think there should be serious investigations and lawsuits about all the seemingly corrupt aspects of the primary.

I think money, especially corporate and foreign money and huge donations to parties and candidates, should be illegal, as should attempting to influence people in government via donations, threats, etc. Note that that would pretty much exempt Clinton from legal participation in politics.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Seek: ”@DoNotKnowMuch – And now you know why I’m simply depressed. As an active voter in a swing state, I very much feel like I have a gun to my head.”

I get that. Do what you need to do. I’m just opposed to fear campaigns that threaten people that they need to vote for their candidate or else. The lesser-of-two-evils (LOTE) is a threat that never expires. And we’re told to support a candidate who supported Iraq, NAFTA, etc. because if we don’t, we’ll get bad stuff like…..war…and bad trade deals..(?).

Anyway, I think it’s important to remember that 50% of eligible voters in this country will not even vote. And there will be Democrats who will vote for Trump. So, voting your conscience – whatever that may be – is completely justified. If you decide to vote LOTE, go ahead. If you decide not to, go ahead. I don’t think the gun to your head is loaded.

Response moderated
anniereborn's avatar

I love Bernie. I loved his platform and am very disappointed that he couldn’t get the nomination. Whether he backed Hillary or not, I was going to vote for her. I am in the “stop Trump” camp.

stanleybmanly's avatar

As I said before, Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton is what we all expected, and it IS necessary and the smart thing for him to do. It means he will be at the convention shaming the lap dogs & pushing the whores leftwards. I will vote for Stein but only because Clinton and the Democrats are sure to “run the tables” in California. If there is the barest hint that the issue is in doubt, I’ll switch to Clinton in a heartbeat.

Seek's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch – At this point there is no one I actually want to vote for. No one at all. I’m not even sure who the lesser evil is, all things considered.

Rarebear's avatar

@stanleybmanly I object to your use of the word “whores”. It’s derogatory and misogynistic. It is language like this that makes many detest the rhetoric of some Sanders supporters. Just because someone disagrees with you politically does not mean they are prostituting themselves. Calling someone vile names is not a way to get them to agree with you.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I’m sorry if you’re offended, but I see from your comment that you have no idea who exactly I’m painting with the naughty word. Entrenched politicians aren’t whores because they disagree with me. They’re whores because they sell themselves and do so to the detriment of the public interest. I’ve been referring to the Congress as a corporate whorehouse since my arrival at fluther, and am willing to risk offending your sensibilities until you manage to present any evidence countering my assertion.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Rarebear – It’s not misogynistic, and was only presented as so during a campaign that was directly engaged at attacking the left. “Corporate whore” is a term that everyone should have been using for the past 30 years along with us. The fact that it took an attempt by progressives to infiltrate the Democratic party to expose conservatives to this term is a bit troubling. Note: misogyny is a real thing. To use it incorrectly as a tool to subvert class politics – in service to corporate America – does a disservice to legitimate institutional analysis and feminism.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Seek: “At this point there is no one I actually want to vote for. No one at all. I’m not even sure who the lesser evil is, all things considered.”

We really need a “none of the above” option.

Coloma's avatar

Well…if the whore fits…. calling a spade a spade or a whore a whore is what it is.
If it walks like a duck and all that jazz.

Rarebear's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch Sure it’s misogynistic. It’s also offensive. But whatever.

Soubresaut's avatar

This may be an irrelevant question (I’ve mostly been scanning headlines to keep up with the election for a while now, been too busy, so I’m not super up to date…)

Isn’t there a chance Sanders would be brought into a Clinton Presidential Cabinet?

If so… would that change anyone’s minds? Because that would mean a Hillary presidency would get Bernie into the executive branch. The cabinet positions are nothing to snub.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Rarebear Now I understand. Believe me, my “whores” comments are not about Clinton supporters, particularly now as they represent the only salvation between Trump and the Presidency .

filmfann's avatar

I understand why many don’t want to vote for Hillary, but much of her platform was designed by Bernie. Voting for Hillary is essentially voting for what Bernie wants.

Rarebear's avatar

@stanleybmanly What? This is what you wrote:
“It means he will be at the convention shaming the lap dogs & pushing the whores leftwards.”

Who are you referring to as a whore? Anybody who is not a leftist?

Zaku's avatar

Here’s another iconic moment of the primary campaign which happened today at the DNC convention: Crowd Chanting for Bernie, Speaker Chants for Hillary Instead

Zaku's avatar

@filmfann Except not. The TPP/TPIP is a huge horrible corporate power grab, and should not be supported by anyone. Fracking should not be supported by anyone. Private for-profit prisons should not be supported by anyone. Politics by money should not be supported by anyone. The list goes on… just because many policies are given lip service, does not make important issues go away.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@Soubresaut I think it highly unlikely. They would always clash on too many things since she’s basically a Republican and he’s genuinely progressive. She’ll need everyone around her to tow the line the same way that every politician before her has. She won’t make him a part of her cabinet simply because he’s too interested in making change, and he won’t be able to do that if he’s a part of her cabinet. That’s my take on it, anyway.

Regarding the question, I think it makes perfect sense for him to support her. Sanders is someone who fought, loudly, for the Civil Rights movement, among a whole host of other things, and he doesn’t want to see Trump take the country back 50 years. I don’t at all think he wanted to endorse her, but he probably feels that he has no other choice. Which I can absolutely understand and respect.

However, as a die-hard Sanders supporter, I will not be following his lead and voting for Hillary. Because for me, it was never about the person – it was about what he stood for, and what he was trying to do for the country. By extension, I was very moved by him and supported him as an individual. Clinton, on the other hand, is corrupt just like most politicians before her. If she wants the most progressive Sanders supporters to change their support to her, the burden is on her to give us a good reason to do so. And so far, I’m not at all satisfied with the “compromises” she has made. All I’m seeing so far is that she doesn’t give one shit about what millions of Sanders supporters wanted for the country. She has never listened and she never will.

Additionally, regardless of the so-called compromises that she has made so far (and we will see if she even keeps her word on said compromises), I can’t stand her in general. She is bought. She supports/supported fracking, she’s pro TPP, and that’s the tip of the iceberg. I genuinely can’t stand her because she is morally bankrupt. She sees no huge problems in this country and that, in and of itself, is a huge problem. I can not support her and feel right about it.

I might vote for Jill Stein, or I might just write Bernie’s name in, even if it’s pointless. I am done playing the game that the system tries to force people to play. No. More.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Soubresaut Your question & filmfann’s show me just how differently people can view the same situation. To my mind, there isn’t much chance that Hillary would offer Bernie a cabinet post, though it would be one hell of a show with Sanders as Secretary of Labor. But more to the point, there is even less chance that Bernie would accept a cabinet post. Bernie can’t work for Hillary because their views differ radically on the road to solutions. While I will readily back either as long as the alternative is Trump, I very much would prefer Sanders, because his explanation for the way things work is much closer to my own. It is EXTREMELY important to recognize what Sanders has achieved in this campaign. Sanders FORCED Clinton to address issues that were formerly at the heart of the justification for the Democratic party. Issues that she was perfectly ready to ignore had Bernie not been around. When Clinton starts piping those lines about making the system work for everyone not just the millionaires, I cringe. It’s just too much like a wolf telling me “the sheep need a break”. Clinton claims we need to tweak the system to make it fair, while Sanders says it is now the system ITSELF that is unfair. Tweaking is not enough.

Zaku's avatar

There’s a buzz going ‘round that the DNC gave Sanders an ultimatum, saying he and his delegates could only attend if he endorsed Clinton, but that there is still room for them to push to change minds on the candidate during the convention. That’d be sweet… :-)

filmfann's avatar

@Zaku Would you rather vote for Bernie if he promised most of Hillary’s agenda in the platform?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Rarebear “lap dogs and whores” has nothing to do with where you are on the political spectrum. Perhaps you will understand my bitterness and the severity of my criticisms as well as just WHO I’m talking about if you ask yourself just what it is that the people governing us, Democrats, Republicans, it doesn’t matter- what is it they all have in common? Or let me put it this way. Bill & Hillary! How is it possible that 2 people with a lifetime of nothing but government jobs wind up as multimillionaires? The answer to that question is at the heart of my preference for Sanders over Clinton and should be yours as well.

Seek's avatar

Let’s not forget that men can be and are whores, too. The term “whores” itself is not inherently misogynistic.

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Jeruba: “What scares me the most about the 2016 U.S. election is the possibility that Trump could win exactly that way—by the vote of people who don’t mean it, think he can’t win, and don’t actually support him. That isn’t even the will of the people.”

Remember – both Clinton and Trump have unfavorable ratings of around 60%. An election of either of these people would hardly represent the “will of the people”. Most are simply planning to vote in opposition to the other candidate. It’s important to also take into consideration that only about 50% of eligible voters will even be engaged enough to vote. “Will of the people” will be a stretch, regardless of November’s outcome.

Rarebear's avatar

I mourn the loss of civility. Fine. Keep your ad hominem misogynistic language. You are in good company with Trump supporters.

Strauss's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch …only about 50% of eligible voters will even be engaged enough to vote.

Can you cite a source for that?

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Yetanotheruser: ”@DoNotKnowMuch …only about 50% of eligible voters will even be engaged enough to vote.

Can you cite a source for that?”

From wikipedia:

1980 52.8%
1984 53.3%
1988 50.3%
1992 55.2%
1996 49.0%
2000 50.3%
2004 55.7%
2008 57.1%
2012 54.9%

Rarebear's avatar

I have a feeling that this year will be higher since people are so polarized and the rhetoric is so toxic.

Jeruba's avatar

@DoNotKnowMuch, fair point. I’m very cool toward Hilllary myself, and (as I may have said elsewhere) I think it takes a Trump to make her look good. I’ve wondered aloud, facetiously, if he’s running because the Democrats paid him to.

But I was actually trying to make a distinction between voting with very low enthusiasm for someone you don’t like very much and voting completely cynically for someone (or something) you totally dislike, someone you hope won’t win, just to make a statement while expecting that candidate to lose. What if he doesn’t?

DoNotKnowMuch's avatar

@Jeruba: “What if he doesn’t?”

The Democrats decided to take a risk on Clinton (someone who is loathed by the left and the right). They decided to run someone with near historic unfavorability numbers. I think that question is probably best asked to Democrats.

Zaku's avatar

@filmfann “Would you rather vote for Bernie if he promised most of Hillary’s agenda in the platform?”

- What? I don’t get what you mean by that. You mean would I rather vote for Bernie than for Clinton, if somehow he could be the nominee but would need to promise to support the TPP, fracking, and so on? Would I rather vote for him then, compared to Clinton? Or do I even follow your question?

filmfann's avatar

Bernie has strongly influenced the democratic platform. He won’t be the nominee, but much of his agenda will be followed by Hillary.
BTW, Hillary does not support TPP or fracking.

olivier5's avatar

I have no dog in that race but have a lot of respect for Sanders. He ran a great campaign and rekindle a genuine democratic spirit in a polity otherwise dominated by big money. Trump needs to be beaten soundly, not by a small margin. The dems need to take back congress. Don’t let all this positive political energy die in recrimination and petty differences. Yes, Hillary isn’t perfect. Who is?

If you respect Sanders, follow his lead.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
thisismyusername's avatar

@canidmajor: “Rabid Bernie Sanders supporters…”

Oh, good times. Really starting to recall why you take such issue with me. Wow.

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