Hoosier State Showdown
The results from today's Indiana Primary will go a long way toward setting the course for the end of both party's nomination fights.
As Indiana voters head to the polls, all four of the major players left in the 2016 race for President are preparing for a night that could be decisive in determining the outcome of the respective party nomination battles. On the Republican side, the choice has essentially come down to a resigned choice to line up behind Donald Trump, or to stick with Ted Cruz and a strategy aimed at a contested convention that seems to be becoming more and more tenuous as the days go on. On the Democratic side, the race has come down to one between a seemingly inevitable Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who continues to insist that he will stay in the race regardless of the outcome of today’s contest in the Hoosier State. The reality is that, in both contest, voters seem poised to deliver a message to the underdogs that is fairly clear if they choose to listen.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump remains solidly in the lead in the race and, depending on the scope of his victory, to pick up the lions share of the delegates up for grabs on the GOP side. According to the RealClearPolitics average, Donald Trump has a 10.8 point lead over Cruz thanks, with the two most recent polls, from NBC News and Gravis, showing him leading by 15 and 17 points respectively. It’s worth remembering that Trump has had a tendency to outperform his polling when he does win a state, so this suggests that he could be headed for a big statewide victory, If that happens, then Trump could stand to do very well in the delegate haul. Merely by winning the state, Trump would pick up 30 of the 57 delegates automatically. The remaining 27 will be allocated based on performance in each of the state’s nine Congressional Districts. Depending on how the race goes at that level, Trump could walk away with enough delegates to put him well over 1,000 in the delegate count, and potentially within 200 delegates of the majority he needs to win the nomination. Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich, meanwhile, could end up being shutout of the delegate count completely or, perhaps, just a handful of delegates that will do little to help in the effort to stop Trump from winning the nomination. All of this has raised fears among the “Stop Trump” movement that Indiana could effectively be their last stand, and warnings from many of the groups funding that movement that they could pull their fundraising if Cruz is unable to pull off a win in Indiana, something which seems unlikely at this point. If that happens, then the “Stop Trump” movement will be effectively dead.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton already has a clear path toward winning the Democratic Presidential nomination that she failed to win in 2008, but she still finds herself dealing with an opponent who stubbornly refuses to get out of the race. Regardless of who wins tonight, it’s likely that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders could end the night mathematically eliminated from being able to win enough delegates to win the nomination, but that doesn’t seem apparent from the way he’s acting, Most recently, Sanders has been pushing the rather absurd idea that he could somehow persuade the Superdelegates to support him over Clinton even though she would have won the most delegates and received the most popular votes of any of the candidates for President in either political party. It’s an absurd idea that has little basis in reality, but as long as Sanders clings to this notion, he’s likely to stay in the race. With respect to today’s race, RealClearPolitics shows Clinton with a 6.8 point lead over Sanders and most recent polling showing the gap between Clinton and Sanders somewhere in the mid single digits. This suggests that there’s a good possibility of a close final outcome, and possibly even a narrow Sanders win. That win, however, is likely to be less important than the delegate allocation which, unfortunately for Sanders, will not be sufficient enough for him to make a serious dent in the delegate count.
So, here’s my forecast for tonight:
- Republicans — Trump wins comfortably enough to pick up at least 45 of the 57 delegates at stake, putting him within less than 200 delegates of winning the nomination outright. If Trump does this well, and especially if he does much better (such as sweeping most or all of the 57 delegates at stake) I would expect we’ll start to see the pressure increase on Ted Cruz and John Kasich to get out of the race increase, although I doubt that either candidate will do so.
- Democrats — I’ll go ahead and predict a narrow Clinton victory that adds to her delegate total. As with the GOP, this will increase pressure on Sanders to at least hold up in his attacks on Clinton and will likely lead many of the Superdelegates who remain on the sidelines to rally behind Clinton in an effort to bring the race to a close as soon as possible.
Polls close at 6pm Eastern in most of the state, but since there are counties in the Northwest and Southwest parts of the state on Central Time, we likely won’t start getting substantial results until after 7pm Eastern.
Horrible rain throughout the center part of the state. We’ll see if this affects the expected surge of first time voters.
Well, Trump this morning accused Cruz’s father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald, on the basis of a National Enquirer “report,” so presumably he’s wrapped up the I-am-a-moronic-paranoid-conspiracy-theorist vote in Indiana.
I spent a lot of time working in Hoosier Hollow. I’m certain Indiana Republican Primary voters will eat this up like pigs in slop.
Teddy doesn’t have a chance.
@CSK:
Upon being told all thoughtful people would vote for him, Adlai Stevenson supposedly replied, “But I need a majority.” So you’re saying Trump does have the majority of IN Republican primary voters?
Hillary has already started backtracking and re-changing. She has apologized to the coal miners for saying that she basically was going to put them out of business. So now she is apologizing to them and saying that she misstated that or was misquoted by the news.
“Hillary”s doing so much back tracking and reversing, she’s going to need a new transmission !”
@gVOR08:
If the majority of the Indiana Republican primary voters are devotees of crackpot conspiracy theories, I guess I am saying that.
Drives me crazy. Why not just tell them they are in a dead-end business and we will do our best to retrain you in an industry with a future. Instead she backtracks and claims she misspoke and was taken out of context, etc….
It’s why people don’t care for politicians.
@J-Dub:
That’s easy. Because they don’t want to hear that. They would rather listen to some Republican spinning a fantasy tale about saving the coal mines by cutting the owners’ taxes and by getting rid of “unnecessary ” regulation. Extra points if the Republican pins the industry’s decline on “foreigners” or on “those people”.
So Hillary is pandering a little to prevent the coal miners from going to the Republicans. Even then, it probably won’t work.
I think after tonight the donors are going to exercise some discipline by telling the losers it is time to give up the fight and spend more time with their families. Sanders is already cutting back on staff and I suspect there will be a lot more cuts after tonight.
For the life of me, I don’t know who is giving money to Kasich but I expect the them to turn off the tap after tonight as well.
Cruz will hang in there till the convention.
It’s starting to look like an Alien vs. Predator match-up…
I have to giggle, however. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
@stonetools: Also, it isn’t even a natural gas vs. coal thing. It turns out that coal in the Midwest is easier to access than coal in the Appalachians. Hence, even if we were to mandate the burning of coal, these people would still be subject to the ruthless law of the market.
There’s been a lot of commentary about how the NRO gang doesn’t respect the working-white class and in fact despises them. But they’re right: pull up your roots and move elsewhere, please. The world doesn’t owe you a living in the Appalachians, no matter how much you complain about it.
Ted Cruz:
Strong words considering how mendacious Cruz himself is.
Republicans have a serious problem besides Trump…
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/gops-impending-florida-apocalypse.html
Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee, Bernie Sanders continues to create his own political reality — devising new and creative excuses to explain why he’s losing to her and why he should be the party’s standard-bearer in November.
Their first mistake was mistaking Bernie Sanders for a Democrat.
Since he has never been a Democrat, he feels no need to “seek unity” with an alien entity.
@Neo:
You can’t spell “Sanders” without “Nader.”
Better to let him pretend to be a Democrat than risk possible alternatives.
He can be ignored after Philadelphia.
Looks like an almost perfect year for a 3rd. party run. Around 50% in both parties do not support the persons most likely to get the nomination. Bloomberg comes to mind first. People are looking around .
@C. Clavin:
Cruz has spent his entire adult life as the guy who was used to winning fights with reasonable people by being the biggest jerk in the room. He was like the nebbishy version of an alpha male and likely never had to deal with someone like Trump, who is a step up (down?) on the alpha male scale.
Trump doesn’t care about looking reasonable or respectable. He doesn’t care about being clever or witty. He’s just going to hit you and go on hitting you, even when the fight’s almost over and he’s established dominance over you.
Mike
Why do you hate Heidi Cruz so much that you would wish this on her? What did she ever do to you?
@Tyrell: There’s a reason Bloomberg made his announcement that he wasn’t running when he did. The existence of “sore loser” laws make it very hard for even the best-funded and best-organized 3rd party candidates to make a dent at this stage in the game. They couldn’t even get on the ballot in some states.
You’d just have the GOP Primary all over again, with Trump squeaking by with his 40% of lunatic followers. No thank you.
@Tyrell: The only people interested in a Bloomberg run are a bunch of people on Wall Street and the handful of grifters called election managers who think they could con Bloomberg into throwing a few millions their direction.
The rest of us are saying: “What? It’s not enough that we already have a billionaire Noo Yawker who thinks he knows how to run everyone’s lives–we gotta get another one in the race?!”
The trouble is is that Cruz really never has been in a real fight and has not really won anything outside of the highly regulated and stylized environments of debates and courtrooms. Even his elections in Texas has not been hard-fought.
@grumpy realist: Time to go full Idiocracy and nominate Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. He wins the everyman WWE vote, the swooning women, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics who think he vaguely looks like them, and the rest of us that are captivated by his thousand-watt smile. Can’t miss.
@Tyrell: Hillary is not putting coal miners out of business. The 21st Century is putting coal miners out of business. Natural gas and AGW. Last year, worldwide, the majority of new electric plant construction starts were renewables, not coal or NG. Coal miners and conservatives are committing what I call “the Kirk Fallacy” after actually reading Kirk and finding he blamed enclosures, industrialization, and urbanization on liberals. Things change. Liberals don’t cause much of it.
@C. Clavin: Actually, I think Cruz is relatively truthful. Believing all of what he says may qualify him as psychotic, what he believes may be morally and factually wrong most of the time, but I think he means it.
And in this case he is probably right. It is probably insulting for Ted Cruz to feel he is justified to insult your character, but in that case it doesn’t make him wrong.
@J-Dub:
Actually, if you read the transcripts, that’s exactly what she said, albeit poorly. The whole quote is that the jobs are going away but that she will make sure the people in coal mining towns are not abandoned. It got shortened to that first half, but the second half was there. And if you read what she said today (yesterday?) she’s apologizing for the way she said it. She doesn’t change her stance that the jobs are going away. Admittedly, the way she said it originally was inartful and ripe for pulling out of context, but does anyone really think she meant to get up in front of a bunch of coal miners and tell them she planned to take their jobs away? I mean, she’s not Ted Cruz… Here’s what she said today:
@Pete S: The best liars I have ever met all had the knack of sincerely believing what they were saying at the moment and sincerely believing something quite the opposite five minutes later.
@Tyrell:
Only an idiot would want to let the House select the next President.
Also, Cruz gives up.
@PJ:
Hahahahahahah!!!!
@PJ:
The Last True Conservative goes down in flames.
ba-da-bap-ba-bah
i’m lovin’ it.
@charon:
If Clinton loses a close contest in November, her supporters are going to act baffled about why more Sanders voters didn’t come around to voting for her.
Gee, I wonder.
The cake is baked, barring some extreme development on the health or legal fronts, she will be the nominee. But I still don’t see how Clinton supporters have such little understanding of basic game theory.
We can make a very reasonable assumption (based on many of their own words) that if Sanders had turned out to be the Democratic nominee, most (like 99%) Clinton supporters would have voted for him in the general election, if only to help keep Trump out of the White House.
We can also make a reasonable assumption (based on history) that a fair percentage of Sanders supporters who say they will never vote for Clinton are in fact telling the truth.
If both of these statements are true, then if there’s any chance a particularly important election (with control of the Supreme Court in the balance) will be close, then a rational party would choose the candidate most likely to turn out the largest percentage of the total electorate that is predisposed to leaning in their direction.
But the Democratic party isn’t rational. Instead they seem almost certain to nominate the candidate who is less likely to turn out the greatest percentage of their voters. Then just to add some icing on the cake many of those who voted for this weaker (using the criteria above) candidate choose to spend months insulting the voters who they wish/need to have join them in November as “selfish” “delusional” “idiots” and “sore losers”.
The real irony in all of this is that by the time the party conventions roll around, Republicans will have had time to come to grips with Trump as their nominee, and even most of the current “never Trump” conservatives will likely have united around him. Democrats on the other hand will probably still be doing all they can to alienate and denigrate a significant block of citizens who voted in their primaries. Even just a month or two ago, who would have imagined that there was any chance Philadephia may end up being “messier” than Cleveland?
@Todd:
So the larger number of Clinton supporters should given into the blackmail by the smaller number of Sanders supporters?
Remember, in the real world, Clinton has more supporters and they are more engaged than those supporting Sanders. He has also relied on lower turnout victories to try and keep the race close, but that kind of invalidates the idea that he’s going to be able to drive up the turnout compared to Clinton in the general election.
@David M: No, nobody needs to “give in” to anything.
I just continue to fail to understand the logic of assuming that Clinton was/is the “more electable” candidate.
Time will tell. We’ll find out in November.
The existence of many Sanders supporters who prefer Trump over Clinton has nothing to do with the concept of “blackmail.” It has to do with the fact that both Trump and Sanders are popular with working-class white men, and Clinton is not.
Link:
Drawing conclusions from any single poll is usually not a good idea.
Also, “has more supporters” is not necessarily synonymous with ‘has gotten more votes in D primaries so far.’
The fact is, the party would have been easier to unite around Sanders … since most of Clinton’s supporters don’t fundamentally disagree with the majority of his policy proposals … even if many of them don’t think they could be accomplished, and/or are somehow scared that the mythical “swing voters” would be repelled by them.
On the flip side though, many Sanders supporters have real problems with positions that Clinton has taken both during the campaign, and in the past. Even more importantly, many don’t trust her. When they say the won’t vote for her, they mean it. Jill Stein is likely to get more votes than ever this time around … if many of these young/disenfranchised voters bother to come to the polls at all.
You can cry all you want about how “unfair” it is, and even how shortsighted some of these Sanders supporters are being. But facts are facts. There is a significant chunk of Democratic primary voters who will not be checking the box next to Hillary Clinton’s name in November.
There’s probably nothing you can do to change their minds.
However, there’s also another group of voters who don’t like Clinton, but might still be persuaded to vote for her anyway. The more Clinton supporters persist in their insistence that these Sanders voters should just “shut up and fall in line behind Hillary”, the more likely it becomes that they too will choose to look at alternative candidates in November.
A helpful reminder from LGM: Elections Are Not About Your Fee-Fees
The only alternative to Clinton is Trump, which shouldn’t be a difficult decision for any Sanders supporters.
Sanders would never have been my preferred choice no matter who was running in the primary, but I still would have voted for him in the general because….really?
@Todd: I voted for Bernie, and will happily vote for Hillary in the general election. But I’m an adult, and know I don’t always get everything that I want.
If young Bernie supporters have decided they’d rather vote third-party than vote for Hillary, someone should remind them of that old saw: “making the Perfect the enemy of the Good.” And also point out what happened when Nader ran.
@grumpy realist: I’m in that second group I talked about above who is still inclined to probably vote for Clinton in the end. But I’m really pretty disgusted with Democrats at the moment … especially with (some of) their attitudes that Independents had no business voting in “their” primaries anyway.
As for the Nader comment, I’ve stated my opinion on that several times. The Democrats ultimately lost in 2000 because Gore was a weak candidate who ran a bad campaign. In a lot of ways this year is very similar … except that Hillary Clinton is by almost any objective measure an even weaker candidate than Gore. If she loses in November, it will have little to anything to do with Bernie Sanders or his supporters.
Todd, I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems like you assume that all Clinton supporters are reluctantly choosing her over Bernie, and are simply wrong in their analysis. I can only speak for myself but while I like Bernie’s ideas and am glad he is around, I think he would be a disaster as a president. And I think he would lose to Trump. I really only know presidential history from a couple of decades before I was born, but effective presidents have the ability to work with Congress. LBJ, Nixon (when he wasn’t being incredibly self destructive), Roosevelt. Even George HW Bush was able to push his agenda, such as it was, effectively. Obama, who I consider to be far and away the greatest president of my life, may seem to be the exception to this but his signature achievement, healthcare reform, came about when he had a slim majority in Congress. His achievements since then has come about because of the collapse of the Republican party and their complete inability to take positive action rather than simply blocking. So while they could unravel all of his executive orders by legislation, they are patently unable to actually pass any legislation. Obama has been a master of keeping just this side of the line that would unite the dysfunctional Repubs and spur them to action.
Bernie has a vision of the country in a better place, but in 74 years he hasn’t demonstrated that he has what it takes to make progress on that vision. He only became a Democrat when he wanted to run for president. He hasn’t reached a single hand out to help other Democrats and then appears surprised when they won’t put their political careers on the line to help him. No, that’s not right. He isn’t surprised, because it is fairly obvious that he harbors deep contempt for all other politicians. They are all sell outs, while he is the one pure man. He won’t help them with campaigns or issues because in so doing he would sully himself. But of course they should help him because he is pure.
You may even believe he is right. Heck, even I believe there is a grain of truth there. After all, people who get down in the mud to push the car forward end up dirtier than those who feel it is more important to stand aside and lecture about purity.
I wish to god Clinton was a better candidate. But once you are president, personal popularity doesn’t count for much. Historic levels of support for Obama helped him not one bit when he lost the Democratic majority. If we can get her in, I honestly believe that her incredibly tenacious personality will lead to institutionalization of Obama’s gains. And that she will work tirelessly to elect other Dems. That’s what we need and what I want her to do.
@MarkedMan: Yes, you (and a lot of commenters here) misunderstand me a little bit. I’m not a huge Sanders fan. I have just believed for quite a while now that Clinton is such a flawed candidate that she will have a very hard time winning the general election. I would have preferred if Joe Biden had gotten into the race. But of the two Democrats who were viable in this primary, Sanders is, objectively, the candidate who would likely have a better chance of winning in November. His message of economic populism is right for the mood of the country. Clinton’s likely campaign theme of identity politics is just not likely to work … unless by “work” we define it as uniting the Republican party strongly behind Donald Trump.
Also, I’m not making any judgements about whether Sanders voters who choose not to support Clinton in the general election campaign are “right” or “wrong”. Merely that it’s a fact that many will not turn out to vote for her.
@Todd:
“We can make a very reasonable assumption (based on many of their own words) that if Sanders had turned out to be the Democratic nominee, most (like 99%) Clinton supporters would have voted for him in the general election, if only to help keep Trump out of the White House.”
Not a reasonable assumption at all. Given the choice between a candidate calling for a socialist revolution and an American First candidate, many of them would have stayed home or voted third party or even for Trump. Clinton supporters don’t owe Sanders anything more than Sanders supporters owe Clinton.
@Todd:
Because she’s:
– won more states
– has millions more votes
– even without the superdelegates, has more delegates
– gets votes from both Democrats and the unenrolled/independent voters whereas Sanders appeals more to the unenrolled then Democrats
What’s seems to be happening here is your definition of “more electable” is really “more personally likable” (whether or not that’s true is a different debate). By all the criteria set for by the actual election process we’ve done so far, she is the candidate who has done better in every measurable way it takes to win. One of the reasons why Sanders supporters are getting the sour grapes image attributed to them is things like this; denying her legitimate wins and acting like this is fantasy football to get the matchup desired. By all means, say “she won’t beat Trump” or “won’t do well in the general” but as far as the Democratic candidates go, she’s the proven “more electable” one.
@Moosebreath: Again, I think you are mistaking the words “should” for “would”. I’m in no way saying that Clinton supporters would “owe” their votes to Sanders were he the nominee … only that many Clinton supporters (including here in this comments section) have consistently said that they would support whoever the Democratic nominee is.
Many Sanders supports on the other hand have consistently said for over a year now that they would not vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election. It’s not a “sore loser” thing. For many of them it’s a principle thing.
@KM: This is fine. She has likely the won the Democratic nomination fair and square. But now Democrats have to own their choice. My beef is when the “Nader comparison” comes up … where it’s implied that it will somehow be the fault of Sanders and his supporters is she doesn’t win the general election.
@Todd:
“only that many Clinton supporters (including here in this comments section) have consistently said that they would support whoever the Democratic nominee is.”
And you are massively misunderstanding my argument. Many Clinton supporters would not support Sanders, as they view him as half a step at most from being a Communist.
Most of the commentators here are more politically attuned than the average voter, so looking at what is said here is not a good way of viewing voters as a whole.
@Moosebreath:
What objective evidence do you have to support that statement?
@Moosebreath: To me this sounds like the same logic as those who imagine that Sanders would become much more unpopular once he was attacked in a general election campaign … so the logical solution is to nominate the candidate who is already as unpopular as you imagine Sanders might be. Makes perfect sense.
Published yesterday, and relevant:
11 million votes for Trump are a message to the GOP that they have a problem, and that they need to pay attention to those 11 million. 9 million votes for Sanders are a similar message.
As someone else said:
With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans? So certain Ds here and elsewhere who says Sanders is too liberal for America are really saying Sanders is too liberal for them.
@Todd:
Many Clinton supporters would not support Sanders, as they view him as half a step at most from being a Communist.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html
Of course we all *know* that Clinton is only unpopular because she has been treated “unfairly” by the media, Republicans, and now the Sanders campaign.
…. and of course, this time, when it’s Donald Trump who is making the “unfair attacks”, the American people are suddenly going to realize how wrong they’ve been about her all along, and finally give her the credit she rightly deserves.
Pure fantasy.
I like Sam Wang, IMO much better track record than Nate Silver or Larry Sabato:
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/05/01/what-do-head-to-head-general-election-polls-tell-us-about-november/
. ” …Using this approach, the probability that Trump can catch up by November is 9%, and the probability that Clinton will remain ahead of Trump is 91%**. … “
Published yesterday, and relevant:
11 million votes for Trump are a message to the GOP that they have a problem, and that they need to pay attention to those 11 million. 9 million votes for Sanders are a similar message. Is Clinton going to address that “broad vein of discontent?” I’m not sure she wants to. As someone else said:
With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans? So certain Ds here and elsewhere who says Sanders is too liberal for America are really saying Sanders is too liberal for them.
@charon: That link doesn’t say anything about Clinton supporters saying they wouldn’t vote for Sanders. It merely illustrates Clinton supporter’s fears that “others” (the mythical swing voters) would be persuaded by Republican attacks.
And there’s also the assumption that Clinton, who already has far greater negative favorability than any Democratic candidate in modern history, is somehow at her “floor” when it comes to unfavorability. While she’s certainly been in the public spotlight for a long time, she herself has never been subjected to the sustained pressure of a general election campaign.
It’s all academic though. As I said in my first comment, barring some extraordinary event on the health or legal front, she will be the nominee; so we will have the chance to learn first hand whether fears about her candidacy were legitimate or unfounded. With Sanders, we’ll never really know for sure, since he almost certainly won’t be the nominee.
charon:
So do I. And he tells us that general election match up polls “tell us quite a lot,” at this point. He doesn’t mention that those polls show Sanders as stronger than Clinton.
I could show you endless examples, here and elsewhere, of Clintonists asserting that general election matchup polls are worthless, at this point. Interesting to notice that Wang rejects this.
By the way, here’s an example of a Clintonist asserting that general election matchup polls are worthless, at this point:
Where did I find those words? In the article you cited 7 minutes before you cited Wang. If you look closely, you’ll be able to figure out why Wang is right and Saletan is wrong.
@Todd:
“What objective evidence do you have to support that statement?”
Which part, that they would view him as half a step from being a Communist, or that they would not vote for someone they viewed as half a step from being a Communist?
@jukeboxgrad:
Liberal, shmiberal.
I say Bernie’s irascibility, emotional volatility, solipscism and poor ability to play well with others say he would be a spectacularly ineffective president.
Case in point: Angry temper tntrum in response to click-bait misleading newspaper headline, without bothering to read the story.
Case in point: Pointedly snubbing Dr. Margaret Archer (his host) at an academic conference in Rome. (She had annoyed him by commenting on the political purpose of his visit.)
Case in point: Stalking the Pope, then accosting the Pope in a hotel lobby in the early morning as the Pope was passing through on his way to the airport to fly to Greece.
I noticed in the earliest candidate debates how thin-skinned and easily visibly angered Bernie is. Too emotionally unstable for my taste.
etc. etc. many more etc. possible
@charon:
For those of you OK with the prospect of an easily angered loose cannon as president, Bernie may be gone, but the GOP still has one available.
@Todd:
Here’s the thing about acting/voting your conscious- it has consequences you are supposed to gracefully accept. Followers of Gandhi were well aware they would be beaten for their non-violence, MLK supporters and Freedom Riders went to jail to protest legal inequality. If you choose to make a principled stand, you should not be ashamed and should proudly claim their due…. all of it. It’s not an ethical stand if you do it in the dark and deny it in the light.
If you vote third party, you are effectively take a vote away from the two major candidates. This is mathematical fact. Since voting Sanders is being cast as an ethical stand by supporters, it logically follows they are aware of their choice’s consequences are and have decided their ability to sleep at night was worth it. So if Trump wins because Sanders supporters went Galt, they should be proud of what they’ve done because their hands are clean. The fact that they will have cost her the election (again, a math fact: less votes = less chance of winning) due to their choice will mean others will not be pleased with them. That should not bother them; in fact, they should own it. After all, they didn’t vote for that horrid woman or that boorish jerk!!
The truth is Sanders supporters want their cake and eat it too. Make the choice to go third but don’t want to deal with the inevitable fallout. Fault and blame are two different things: “fault” is the determination of a defect or cause with criticism while “blame” is to social censure. Sanders supporters will definitely be at fault for depriving the Democratic Party of votes in a fit of pique and will get blamed for it as a result. Then again, if it was really a conscious moral choice instead of petulance, what others think of their choice shouldn’t have any bearing on them at all.
@Moosebreath: Who are “they” ????
It is entirely possible that some Democrats in places like Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky or even Missouri might be opposed to voting for a “socialist” … but Democrats are never going to win those States in a general election anyway.
There’s no objective evidence at all that Democratic voters in actual potential tipping point States (FL, OH, CO, VA, IA, NH) would suddenly decide that a Trump presidency was acceptable because Bernie Sanders is “a half step from being a Communist”.
@KM:
That’s the flaw in the argument. Some of these people were NEVER going to be her voters. Just as many Nader supporters in 2000 were NEVER going to vote for Al Gore.
It’s just not credible to say that if a candidate loses an election it’s not really their fault … because some people who “should have” voted for them, instead chose another option.
If Democrats lose in a close election, it will be because a majority of them chose to nominate a candidate who proved unable to get enough votes to win against Donald Trump. Period.
@Todd:
“There’s no objective evidence at all that Democratic voters in actual potential tipping point States (FL, OH, CO, VA, IA, NH) would suddenly decide that a Trump presidency was acceptable because Bernie Sanders is “a half step from being a Communist”.”
I have not seen anyone poll this on a state by state basis, so if that is the only evidence which will satisfy you, then keep holding your breath.
That said, this .Gallup poll has been cited numerous times. It shows Socialists as the only group which more Americans would not support than would support. Not Atheists. Not Muslims. Just Socialists.
@Todd:
“If Democrats lose in a close election, it will be because a majority of them chose to nominate a candidate who proved unable to get enough votes to win against Donald Trump. Period.”
And that’s why I supported Hillary, and not Sanders. Because Sanders would not be able to get enough votes to win against Trump. Period.
@Moosebreath: Because Sanders would not be able to get enough votes to win against Trump. Period.
I am unaware of a single poll where Hillary does better against Trump than Sanders. Every poll I have seen has Sanders beating Trump by a bigger margin than Hillary.
Mike
@Todd:
It’s not a flaw to point out someone’s voting choice for an alt was an active determent to a party’s run at the Presidency when the alt has no chance in hell of winning. Our history is full of failed third party candidates who’ve siphoned off voters that, in the absence of the third party, would have picked one of the two major candidates. True, there are I’m-staying-out-of-this potential voters and those turned off by a particular election cycle but the vast majority of those willing to vote 3rd would have not done so if the option wasn’t there. The NEVERs are not nearly as many as you think. Tell me, absent of the existence of Sanders’ run would you have voted Hillary or Trump?
Again, you confuse fault and blame. It’s definitely Sanders and his supporters’ fault for continuing to support a non-viable candidacy when it’s come down to the inevitable binary run. If you don’t like the binary, join the club but that’s realistically how it is. By keeping the “option” alive past viability, he’s feeding into resentment and bitterness: “We coulda been a contender. Screw Hillary, it should have been Bernie!!!” No, it shouldn’t. It’s over man, y’all need to let it go, he lost. I never thought I’d say this but Cruz was the bigger man by conceding. That Sanders continues to slog it out is souring the waters in a way that’s completely avoidable and unnecessary. All it’s doing is creating bad blood – that’s where the blame is coming from.
@KM: If you vote third party, you are effectively take a vote away from the two major candidates. This is mathematical fact.
Math has nothing to do with it. One cannot take away what does not belong to someone else. Republicans don’t own people’s votes. Democrats don’t own people’s votes. The only obligation people have is a civic duty to cast a ballot. After that, it is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the parties and candidates to earn the voters’ support.
You can blame Nader for running a campaign that could only help George W. Bush. Citizens, however, have the absolute right to vote for anyone they want.
Mike
As I mentioned, Clintonists routinely assert that general election matchup polls are worthless, at this point. Charon helpfully cited Wang proving they are wrong.
@KM:
Yes, Clinton supporters are acting resentful and bitter that Sanders and his supporter don’t “know their place” … which is apparently to just “shut up and color”.
There’s probably plenty of “blame” or “fault”, whatever you want to call it to be shared here. But the ironic fact is, it’s entirely possible that the Republicans could end up more united behind their flawed the candidate in the fall than the Democrats.
Democrats love to gleefully observe how screwed up the Republican party is, but then they conveniently avoid looking in the mirror to examine the possible reasons for their own miserable performance in all but Presidential elections over the past 6 years.
@MBunge:
You are correct in that they don’t own any votes but it is a math fact that voting for a null in a binary system is essentially depriving both of a vote. Since they are not leaning Republican, that means its Democrats who are going to feel the loss.
I don’t understand why people are basically saying “You need to earn my support to vote for you but it’s not my fault you didn’t win because I didn’t pick you!” It’s a complete abrogation of responsibility. Yes, it’s their responsibility to try and win you over to the best of their ability. No, it’s not your fault they didn’t persuade you. No, it’s not your responsibility to vote for them. Yes, you can pick whomever you want. Yes, you are responsible for the consequences of your vote/non-vote/ignore it all up to and including the person you never wanted to win getting the prize because enough people went Galt on the Democrats. Even Rand accepted the consequences of going Galt; she gloried in the damage it would cause.
No single raindrop feels responsible for the flood. We’ll all still drown regardless.
@jukeboxgrad:
Just my opinion, I would modify that to say Sam Wang is right about the early head-to-heads being meaningful where the candidates are both comparably as well known, as Clinton and Trump are.
Where there is a disparity, such as with Dukakis or Sanders, IMO not so much validity to early head-to-head matchups.
The sad part is, the Democrats had a candidate who could have potentially united the party. It would be really interesting to someday learn what the Clintons did to convince Elizabeth Warren not to enter this race.
KM:
I agree with you that people who oppose Trump should vote for Clinton, even if they prefer Sanders. What I think you are missing is that many Sanders supporters legitimately and sincerely prefer Trump to Clinton.
@charon:
Also, I suppose, campaigns do actually matter. That’s why we have them.
charon:
I see nothing in Wang’s data to support this, so I think this is just your version of “unskew.”
@jukeboxgrad:
.
“Some” would be a more appropriate word than “many.” A minor fraction, from what polling I have seen.
Citation needed.
@KM: Yes, you are responsible for the consequences
And you are then responsible for voting for Hillary when you know that many, many people dislike her and don’t want to vote for her. They told you who they wanted to support. You are then just as responsible for rejecting Bernie as they are for rejecting Hillary.
Mike
@Todd: “But of the two Democrats who were viable in this primary, Sanders is, objectively, the candidate who would likely have a better chance of winning in November”
You might want to check the definition of “objectively.” It really doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
@jukeboxgrad:
Isn’t that exactly what I said, prior to you cutely editing away my first three words? I call that dishonest editing.
@jukebox:
“What I think you are missing is that many Sanders supporters legitimately and sincerely prefer Trump to Clinton.”
And the reverse is true as well, as shown in the CNN poll out this morning:
“Although Trump and Sanders supporters both tend to feel less well represented, there isn’t much overlap between Sanders’ supporters in the primary and Trump voters in a hypothetical general election matchup with Clinton. Just 10% of Sanders’ primary backers say they would back Trump in a Clinton-Trump hypothetical head-to-head. That’s about the same as the share of Clinton backers who say they would vote Trump in a Sanders-Trump matchup (11%).”
@wr: Actually, it means exactly what I think it means. Based on all currently available evidence, Sanders has a higher favorability rating than Clinton and does better in almost all of the (admittedly not necessarily predictive) head-to-head general election polling against Trump.
Therefore, objectively, there is currently more evidence to support the contention that Sanders would be the most electable candidate in November.
Most of the reasons that her supporters give that Clinton is really the more electable candidate are almost totally subjective … in that they largely rely on imagined future events, such as Republican attacks against Sanders being remarkably effective. Or that her own negatives won’t matter, because unlike all of his Republican candidates who tried and failed, Clinton will have magic power to “expose” Trump in some way that Sanders wouldn’t.
charon:
I realize you said “just my opinion,” and I don’t think I was obliged to quote those words eight minutes after you said them. Opinions can and should be supported by data. As far as I can tell, this opinion of yours is not. That’s all I was saying. If you can show that I’m wrong, go ahead.
Moosebreath:
Your link is damaged. Try this one.
I don’t like to look at any single poll. I like to look at aggregates. If your poll was correct (that is, that the situation is symmetrical), then Sanders would not be stronger than Clinton, in the many general election matchups. But he is.
@Todd: “. It would be really interesting to someday learn what the Clintons did to convince Elizabeth Warren not to enter this race.”
Gosh, Todd, maybe they had evidence that she was helping Rafael Cruz support Oswald.
We all understand how much you loathe Hillary Clinton — and yes, I know, you don’t hate her, you don’t support Bernie, your real feelings are actually 180 degrees away from those expressed in your hundreds of posts — but does your hatred run so deep that it leads you to assume that even those you claim to respect are nothing but pawns to the all-powerful puppet masters? That it’s not possible to imagine that Elizabeth Warren might simply have decided that she didn’t want to run for president, that she was happy in the senate and chose not to risk her seat, that she was content with the candidates who were running?
Nope. Not for Todd. If Todd wants her to run, then clearly she must have wanted to run, and only the Snidely Whiplash of the Democratic Party could have stopped her.
I can’t wait until Bernie does the inevitable and endorses Hillary — which he will do, no matter any personal feelings, because he knows that everything he’s worked to achieve for the American people will be flushed down the toilet under Trump — and you start wanking on about how she blackmailed him into it.
@Todd:
And what is that place, then? I’ve yet to hear how they will support Hillary because they don’t want Hillary. They want Bernie, period. Well, they’re not going to get Bernie, period. Hillary is not going be Bernie 2.0 no matter how much they want her to be. Now what?
Clinton supporters are getting tired of arguing with increasingly unreasonable people. Sanders people keeps saying they are being disrespected, ignored, marginalized, put in their place, etc when they are demonstrating a complete disregard for the wishes of the majority of voters who picked Hillary. They don’t seem to give a damn about what Clinton supporters want. This is not a hostage situation with a list of demands; it’s supposed to be a negotiation, a give-and-take, a wooing. What exactly does Hillary have to do to earn their support without disregarding the wishes of those who already support her?
@charon: I remember all those tens of millions of PUMAs who would never vote for Obama after he cruelly stole the nomination from Hillary.
My guess is that the die-hard Bernie-ites will have roughly the same powerful effect on the election.
@MBunge:
Yep. Many many people dislike Sanders and don’t want to vote for him. They told you who they wanted to support. They willingly rejected Sanders and there’s more of them then there are Sanders supporters, hence her lead. They are responsible for her eventual nomination and they are OK with it.
Why are their votes not being respected? Why do only Sanders voters feelings and concerns seem to matter?
Electability, popularity whatever are all very well, but some people (e.g., me) care about stuff like temperament, skills, attention span, diligence etc in addition to issues.
Maybe electability not so much an issue anyway, if this is valid:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/gops-impending-florida-apocalypse.html
Maybe we all just worrying about something that does not really matter.
@jukeboxgrad:
Then what is the point in trying to woo them? If they’ve made up their minds, then why waste breath trying to lure them from the dark side? Other then assuaging their egos by making them feel important, what is the point in wasting resources on voters who are sending clear signals they don’t have any intention of voting for her?
If BernieBros -> Trumpista, then we get President Trump. Oh well, at least they didn’t vote Hillary. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
@KM: What exactly does Hillary have to do to earn their support without disregarding the wishes of those who already support her?
There’s probably nothing she can do to win the support of many of them. But that’s kind of the point of this whole debate. Democrats may be screwed in November because the party decided, possibly as long as 8 years ago when she conceded to Obama, that Hillary Clinton was going to be the 2016 Democratic nominee come hell or high water. The mistake that frustrated Clinton supporters make is in thinking that Bernie Sanders is somehow the driving force behind the anti-Clinton sentiment, when the reality is, he was merely the vehicle that ended up being available to express something that would have been present even in the total absence of a Sanders campaign … the desire among many (especially progressives and Independents) for “anyone but Clinton”.
Because they are woo-able. Both Trump and Sanders have shown how to do it. If the GOP learns nothing from the Trump phenomenon, they are in big trouble. Likewise for Ds if they learn nothing from the Sanders phenomenon.
@Todd:
**sigh** And the mistake Sanders supporters are making is the assumption he’s not going to be the nominee is because the fix is in. Anyone can run for President as evidenced by the massive number of Republican trying each time. Sanders, who is not even a Democrat, was allowed to run in the Democrat primaries so the limited number of choices is because people didn’t through their hats into the ring. There’s no grand conspiracy to keep Bernie down.
In this case, “Anyone but Clinton” is admittedly strong but not as strong as “Not Sanders”. It was his responsibility to appeal to and win over her supporters just as much as it was hers to appeal to his. She’s clearly doing a better job as evidenced by the fact that she’s currently winning. She’s not winning all the unenrolled but she’s getting more of them then he’s getting traditional Democrats. Since the election is going to be “Anyone but Trump”, the ultimate question will be if Sanders supporters’ values are truly so flexible they can jump from someone like Bernie to someone like Donald.
@jukeboxgrad
Except they’re NOT. This whole thread is about people saying “Anyone but Clinton”. If it’s about feelings/perceptions, those are rather hard to change and not subject to wooing.
What exactly are you supposed to do to get them into Clinton’s camp? Specifics, please. What does a leaning-toward-Trump voter want to see in Hillary to make her the better choice?
Hours ago I cited two articles which discuss this question in detail, and no one has responded to that comment of mine.
@jukeboxgrad:
It looks to me like winning them over by agreeing to Bernie’s positions.
I refuse that approach, given that it means backstabbing the greater number of people who voted for Hillary’s positions.
Consider these two statements:
A) “Clinton and Sanders generally share the same ultimate goals. It’s just that Clinton is preferable because she’s more realistic and practical about what it’s going to take to get there.”
B) “I fundamentally disagree with concepts like single-payer healthcare and free public college. Just like Clinton herself, my true identity is centrist, not liberal. That’s why I support her.”
Your argument makes sense from the perspective of someone who is thinking B. Trouble is, Clintonists are rarely honest enough to admit they are thinking B. The spin we usually hear from them is A.
@KM:
Leaning towards Trump after Sanders is simply a sign they don’t understand politics well enough to be persuaded by anything approaching logic. I think Sanders endorsing and campaigning for Clinton will fix most of “Bernie or Bust” problem, and it won’t be a real problem.
Anyway, commenters saying that Clinton should promise what she can’t deliver to get the Sanders supporters isn’t going to happen, so there’s no reason to ask for it. “Medicare for All” was the number one reason I wouldn’t ever support Sanders in a primary, so I’m not exactly excited about her joining Sanders ridiculousness on that front.
Because you fundamentally oppose the idea, or because you think it can’t happen? Do you realize that 41% support a “government-run system” for all?
A whole lot of mind-reading going on there, and not remotely plausible, other than in the fantasy land where the GOP was going to help pass Sanders proposals…
I asked you a couple of questions designed to get at these issues.
And as usual with polling, a lot depends on how you ask the question. 41% support a “government-run system” for all, but 51% say “government should have the responsibility ‘to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.’ “
First, Sanders wasn’t going to pass Medicare for All, so I’m not opposing the idea. I’m opposing him promising something he can never deliver.
Secondly, there are no polite words for how dumb an idea it is to try and reform health care again, immediately after Obamacare. Expand Obamacare, sure. Throw it all out for nothing, and risk ending up with something worse? I can’t see anything positive about discussing a major health care reform like that right now.
Good. Let’s review how this question came up. Charon said this:
She was suggesting that there is some real difference between what the two of them ultimately want.
And KM said this:
This is the answer: make clear that what Clinton ultimately wants is generally the same as what Sanders ultimately wants. When you say “I’m not opposing the idea,” this suggests that there is no reason why she can’t make that clear.
You said this:
No, I’m not “mind-reading.” I’m paying attention to what charon said, because it suggests that she is indeed “opposing the idea.” That is, that she does not want what Sanders ultimately wants.
This is the issue I’m trying to get at with those A and B statements.
Wait, we’re now in some alternate reality where most of the Democratic Primary voters and Hillary Clinton no longer support the idea of universal health care coverage?’ How is this even up for discussion. It makes no sense at all.
Link:
@jukeboxgrad:
Banning frakking and nuclear, as examples. Stupid simplistic ideas IMO
Differences on free trade and trade agreements as other examples. Again, Bernie gets simplistic and not well thought out.
On the other hand, the disagreements on minimum wage are mostly about practiucality and doability..
But, in general, I would like to see HRC stick to her guns because her positions are (IMO) better.
We weren’t discussing single payer health care.
@Todd: “There’s probably nothing she can do to win the support of many of them. But that’s kind of the point of this whole debate. Democrats may be screwed in November ”
Sure. Except — who are these voters who would vote for either Trump or Sanders? Aren’t they middle-class white guys — the same middle-class white guys who have been voting for Republican presidents since Reagan?
The Democratic party finally realized a couple of years ago that pursuing the “Reagan Democrats” was no longer their winning ticket — that there was a whole new winning coalition that was black and brown and female (and includes this middle aged white guy). That’s the Obama coalition — and most of them hate and fear Trump more than you love Bernie.
I want a Democratic candidate who can assemble a big coalition, not one dependent on persuading a handful of low-information guys that Brand X is better than Brand Y.
You said this:
I don’t see much difference between “single payer health care” and “Medicare for All.” If you do, I hope you’ll explain what it is.
Medicare for all and single payer are similar, but single payer and universal health care are not.
Anyway, for this to matter, Congress would have to be willing to pass “single-payer” and then Clinton would veto it. Chances of that happening seem low.
@jukeboxgrad:
Why not both plus? A and B and more?
“Medicare for All” seems like a similar scam to the GOP promise to repeal Obamacare these past few years. Given that nonsense is part of what led to Trump, you’ll have to pardon my reluctance to embrace it on the Democratic side as well.
I do not regard HRC as centrist, I call her liberal.
Also, possible to be centrist on some issues and liberal on others, you are getting simplistic and reductionist.
@charon:
Yes, it appears some people missed the memo that HRC is a liberal, and had a liberal voting record.
I’m still not clear about whether you’re saying ‘it’s not possible’ or ‘I don’t want it to happen.’
@jukeboxgrad:
I mostly agree with this but feel I must parse this out as “ultimately” can be a somewhat fickle concept. If you mean she has the same general goals as Sanders, that’s been apparent throughout the campaign. After all, they are running for the same party! They both lie on the leftist side of the spectrum and are very similar on many positions. Where they differ is on how far they would go on something and how it would get done. Emphasizing how similar they are will backfire, I suspect, as Sanders people will feel its fake or disingenuous.
They do want the same things in a global sense. However, charon’s point is that current Hillary supporters may feel a bait-n-switch if she pivots too far to appease new voters. She must continue to appeal to those who picked her and they may not approve of some of the specifics Sanders voters want. We cannot forget in our rush to adopt the on-the-fence people those with an already stated opinion. It’s the specifics that are driving the wedge; appeal to commonality is something Sanders voters will have to learn to accept as she can only drift so far left on some issues. Will they?
This assumes unenrolled/independents are not centrist as well. Remember, she’s trying to persuade all up-for-grabs people, not just the liberal-leaning ones. Being centrist is not a dirty word; it doesn’t mean sellout. That way lies DINO-ism.
@KM: Why do only Sanders voters feelings and concerns seem to matter?
They don’t.
My only point is your initial whining that Sanders voters HAVE to support Hillary or they are terrible people is completely wrong. You tried to support that with this dumb responsibility argument and I responded by pointing out that the circle of responsibility can be extended out to infinity.
If Hillary wants the votes of Sanders supporters, it is her job to attract them. The same would be true is Sanders were winning and he wanted the votes of Hillary supporters. It is not the voters’ job to give their votes to someone they don’t like.
Mike
@MBunge:
Coming from you, that is true, and I agree.
But – statements also acquire meaning from their context. Coming from Bernie Sanders, that same statement reads as a passive-aggressive way to avoid supporting her plus signalling his supporters likewise to withhold support.
Single-payer not possible anytime in the near future, and I think expanding Obamacare is a much, much, much better option at this time. Given the nature of our political system, doing nothing is probably a better option than pushing “Medicare for All’ now.
KM:
One of the lessons of Trumpism is that there are potentially very large gaps between random Republican A and random Republican B. He has shown that the assumed meaning of the word needs to be reconsidered. There is something similar going on with Democrats. We are possibly in the middle of a major realignment.
For example, polls show that even most Rs support higher taxes on the rich. Meanwhile, I notice at least one Clintonist here (not on this thread) who opposes higher taxes on the rich. Above I cited this statement:
The person I’m thinking of is an example of what is described in that sentence. This is what I’m talking about when I say ‘please just be honest enough to admit that you and Clinton are centrists, not liberals.’
Bill Clinton succeeded by making Democrats a centrist party. 9 million votes for Sanders are an indication that he went too far.
David M:
I think you are dodging the question. One more time: I’m still not clear about whether you’re saying ‘it’s not possible’ or ‘I don’t want it to happen.’
@MBunge:
And my point was the pre-preemptive hand-washing of “Don’t blame President Trump on US!” is just as whiny and self-serving. It’s also rather telling that the expectation is for her to totally change to match desires of voters who didn’t get the guy they wanted rather then offer suggestions for a compromise. Sanders voters may be saying “We may be interested, talk to us” but what ‘s coming across is “Give us exactly want we want (Bernie) or we’re taking our toys and going home”. There’s a lot of snide remarks about how smug and condescending Hillary supporters are but the truth is both sides are talking past each other. Hillary supporters have the advantage of the presumptive nominee but do need to work on attracting as many voters as they can. Liberal Sanders supporters do not have the leverage to force Hillary to shift positions without acknowledging their main weapon (votes) risks a Republican victory if overplayed. Both sides need to drop the defensiveness, accept some level of compromise and start talking turkey.
If we really do want the same goals, then why is this still a fight? Why are we still slogging out the primary fight instead of working together on a winning general election strategy with something for everyone?
It’s
KM:
Because it’s really not clear that we “do want the same goals.” One example: when I notice a Clinton supporter (not in this thread) who asserts that the rich pay too much taxes. Another example: when I notice another Clinton supporter (in this thread) who won’t give me a straight answer when I ask him if he supports Medicare for all.
Another example: when Clinton herself says single-payer health care will “never, ever” happen.
@jukeboxgrad:
Wait, I’m confused. You said the same things a few comments apart. Which one is it?
This why Hillary supporters are getting frustrated; lack of clarity and near passive-aggressiveness (not you personally 🙂 ). There is no part of the platform everyone agrees on but at least vague affirmation towards the concepts. Are we the same in concepts but differing in specifics? Specifics are dependent on practicalities; those we can work out what’s feasible or not. Are we differing on core principles? In which case, there’s really very little wiggle room to agree.
I don’t support Sanders current proposal for Medicare for All right now. I do support realistic proposals towards universal health care. It’s borderline trolling to not understand that difference.
KM:
Not really. I’ll try to be more clear. I said this:
I was responding to this question you asked:
My personal opinion is that what Clinton ultimately wants is not generally the same as what Sanders ultimately wants. I think 9 million Sanders voters generally share my opinion. I also think this is a problem for Clinton. You said this:
Because we don’t really “want the same goals.”
David M:
I don’t actually see much of a difference between “Medicare for All” and “universal health care.” You seem to see a big difference there. Maybe you could help me see what I’m not seeing.
That’s not the question after the primary, though, and you know it. The question is whether your goals overlap more with the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee.
And this was true if Sanders won, and Clinton’s supporters are apparently the only adults left, as they were never going to throw a temper tantrum if she lost. Obama’s election in 2008 should be evidence enough of that.
Why should anyone care what the candidates “ultimately want”, when what they will deliver is probably functionally equivalent? Given Sanders clear lack of interest in helping fundraise and elect Democrats to Congress, it’s probably that Clinton will deliver more of what you want than Sanders could.
Maybe I phrased that wrong. There’s nothing contradictory between thinking Sanders “Medicare for All” proposal is a counterproductive joke and supporting universal health care. Opposing Sanders shouldn’t be maliciously distorted as opposing universal health care, for Clinton or most Democrats.
@jukeboxgrad:
So, people who support Sanders should be taken at their word. People who say that Trump is their second choice after Sanders should be taken at their word (even if it is a very poor online poll). The only people that can’t be taken at their word are those that support Clinton. Got it.
@jukeboxgrad :
Well, seeing as how the only goal that matters right now is beating Trump (last man standing as of now), I’d say we all really do.
Because you’re not going to get Medicare for All/universal health care/WTF-ever under him. Or income inequality addressed or living wage or free/cheaper college or civil rights abuse or anything else on the wishlist. You might get something pretty close under Hillary but there’s a snowball’s chance in hell under Trump.
So I ask again, now what?
@Grewgills:
“The only people that can’t be taken at their word are those that support Clinton.”
Them, and the 50% of Americans who say they would never vote for a Socialist.
@jukeboxgrad: The full quote:
That doesn’t equal “I don’t want universal health care.” That equals just what she said, people with health needs now can’t wait, in this country as it currently stands, single payer isn’t going to happen, but we have a health reform effort underway (ACA) that we can keep building on.
@jukebox: I remember that debate. The person in question (HL92) wrote that according to the Vox calculator, he would pay $800,000 more in taxes under Bernie’s plans, vs. about $65,000 more in taxes under Clinton’s – and indicated that the $800k, when he’s already paying high taxes, was a bridge too far. Again, that’s not the same thing as saying you are unwilling to pay higher taxes.
I feel the same way: under the Vox calculator (and again, this presumes that employers won’t give you back the health insurance savings as a raise), my family would pay $10,000 more in taxes ($7,000 net, when you subtract what we currently pay in premiums). We can’t afford that level of tax increase. This does not mean I am not willing to pay more in taxes. (And please note, even Sanders’ supporters aren’t willing to pay as much more in taxes as his plans would require).
David M:
This is an easy analysis if I’m a garden-variety progressive/liberal. The analysis is more complicated if I’m some form of ‘Reagan Democrat.’
Upthread I quoted Biden answering that question.
I’m still having trouble grasping where you stand, so I’ll try a different question. Do you support single-payer health care?
Grewgills:
The problem isn’t people who support Clinton. The problem is people who claim they support Clinton because she’s supposedly more electable, instead of just saying that they don’t support the same goals as Sanders. When they are someone who (elsewhere) admits that they think the rich pay too much taxes, I conclude that the latter reason is more honest.
Monala:
So I’ll ask you the same question I asked someone else: do you want it to happen? And I must notice your goal-post shifting. Clinton didn’t just say single payer isn’t going to happen “in this country as it currently stands.” She said it will “never” happen. Really? I’m pretty sure a lot of people said the same thing about Social Security, Medicare and freeing the slaves.
As I said a few times, 41% currently support a “government-run system” for all, so your “isn’t going to happen” just seems wrong to me.
There is a balance between practicality and aspiration. When you have the former without the latter you end up nowhere.
He suggested strongly that the rich already pay too much. I think that happened in a different thread. Do I need to cite the exact words for you?
And this is no different than any policy, ever, promoted by anyone.
I don’t support any major health care reforms at this time. I think a goal of single-payer health care is too narrowly focused and limiting, and see universal health care as a better, more achievable goal. I don’t oppose single payer in principle, but it’s not the goal, it’s one of many ways to achieve the goal.
@Todd:
Having watched you ride your Hillary hobby-horse for about three weeks now, allow me to say that I don’t believe the above statement. You may believe it, you may even decide to vote for Hillary, but right now, you’re shopping for an excuse to vote for Jill Stein.
@ jukeboxgrad: “single payer” and “universal health care” are not synonymous. Single payer is one way to achieve universal health care; there are others. So yes, I support universal health care. I do not necessarily support single payer – the devil is in the details. Take Medicare for All – currently as I understand it, Medicare is partially paid for out of pocket from senior’s social security – they pay a premium that is deducted from their SS check. Then, their costs are 80/20 – Medicare covers 80%, and they pay 20% out of pocket. That’s why many seniors buy into supplemental plans to help cover that other 20%.
Would this be the same under Medicare for All? According to Sanders, his plan would cover everything. Is that 100%? Are there any costs that wouldn’t be covered? And if so, how would it be paid for, since even Medicare as currently construed doesn’t pay 100%. (Meanwhile, Medicaid does. Do people currently covered by Medicaid suddenly have to start ponying up 20% of their health care costs?) In other words, there are a hell of a lot of details to work out, not even considering that it probably wouldn’t pass under our current Congress.
Another big concern I have about Medicare for All as a woman and mother of a daughter: reproductive health care. There are so many efforts underway in this country to roll back reproductive rights, access to birth control, and access to abortion. A lot of Sanders supporters who are big on economic equality (and Sanders himself) have often said that culture war issues are not as important. But reproductive rights have both huge health care and economic impacts. Right now, women still have access to these things because private insurers and private health care entities provide them. What happens when everything is under government auspices, and the “economics, not culture war!” people decide that letting those Reagan Dems or whomever have what they want in terms of reproductive rights in exchange for their support for something like Medicare for All?
Meanwhile, if the ACA, which is already reducing the ranks of the uninsured and slow the growth curve in health care costscontinues to be improved upon, we might reach universal health care in the next decade. Steps to get there would include getting Red State governors to accept Medicaid expansion (some have come around), and continuing to find ways to lower out of pocket costs for others covered by the ACA.
And juke, you were around during the debates over Obamacare, what makes you think there is any national support for another health care reform now? Especially one that is magnitudes more disruptive than Obamacare was? All the GOP lies about Obamacare…they would be nothing compared to the actual fiasco of implementing “Medicare for All” in the next few years.
@Todd: It’s not possible that Warren doesn’t want to be President in Toddopia I take it?
@Todd: You should consider applying to become a writer for Limbaugh or Hannity, but on Limbaugh, you may need to hurry–there are rumors that the syndicate/network that he is on has declined to renew for a national distribution.
David M:
As far as I can tell, “universal health care” in the absence of “single-payer” means a permanent role for private insurance companies. I think we cannot ever have an efficient system as long as private insurance companies continue to play a major role. I assume you disagree, and maybe you can help me understand why I’m wrong.
It’s one thing to say that Medicare for all is not a practical goal “in the next few years.” It’s something else to say, as Clinton did, that single payer will “never” happen.
The actual views of the candidates on “Medicare for All’ are only relevant if it’s actually going to make a difference during next next few years. Unless Sanders and the GOP aren’t going to pass “Medicare for All” during the next 4 years, in which case we’re back to this being a giant scam.
Why should I care how we achieve universal health care? Do I support expanding Medicaid? Yes. Lowering the Medicare eligibility age? Yes. A federal public option? Yes. State level public options? Yes. State-level single payer proposals? Yes. Increasing the exchange subsidies? Yes. Expanding the exchanges to cover people offered health insurance at work? Yes. Raising the CSR income limits on the exchange? Yes. Increasing the minimum actuarial value of exchange policies? Yes
Pretty much every one of those is more likely than Sanders “Medicare for All” proposal.
David M:
Looking only at the “next few years” is logical only if I think the world is coming to an end soon. I believe in thinking beyond the “next few years.” This has to do with the concept of aspiration, which I have mentioned a few times.
Because if we achieve it in a way that requires private insurance companies to continue to play a major role, it will never be efficient. If you disagree, it would help if you said so plainly, and explained why.
Inefficient universal health care is still an improvement over the status quo…
In the short run, I’m willing to accept anything that is “an improvement over the status quo.” But I am not just thinking about the short run, and for the long run my standards are higher. That’s why it matters to me that Clinton said single payer will “never” happen, and I think I’m not the only one who cares.
And this is just one example of the problem that Biden was talking about when he made the statement I cited.
@jukeboxgrad:
I’ll jump in here. There are a number of developed countries that have universal healthcare that rely in whole or in part on private insurers. My understanding is that the insurers are mandated to offer a standard minimum package paid for, at least in some cases, directly by the government, but are free to offer add on or more premium packages paid for by the consumer. They are essentially guaranteed a fixed but small profit on the minimum packages.
@jukeboxgrad: Switzerland has universal health care that is entirely private insurance. It is tightly regulated to control costs and ensure access.
Japan has a hybrid system of employer-based insurance, plus a public option. Germany has a system of nonprofit insurers.
As I said, universal health care is the goal. Single payer is not the only way to get there. In addition, given what I wrote about reproductive health rights, I am not sure that at this time in the U.S. I would want to give up a role for private insurers.
jukebox, let me ask you this: any legislation that gets passed goes through a series of negotiations and compromises. Would you accept a single payer plan structured the way Medicare is now: everyone pays a premium (regardless of income), and only 80% of costs are covered (again, regardless of income)? Would you accept a single payer plan that disallowed any coverage of birth control or abortion? Would you accept a single payer plan that rationed care? Because all of those are possible compromises that would likely get made to get a single payer plan approved.
I have to take a long pause now, probably until tomorrow. But everyone familiar with my very long track record here knows that I will eventually show up and respond to pretty much everyone who has addressed me. I appreciate the recent detailed comments and I want to try to give them a thoughtful response.
Even if Clinton opposes single-payer, which I’m not convinced of, over the long run it’s entirely irrelevant.
If it’s the long run that’s important, it seems like the preferred candidate would be the one that’s willing to fundraise and support down-ticket Democrats.
Obama hasn’t be the limiting factor these last 7 years, it’s been Congress.
@jukeboxgrad:
That may be Clinton speaking from experience. Remember, she was the lead person pushing for universal health care in the 1990s, she pushed for the passage of SCHIP, and she had a front row seat to President Obama’s push to get the ACA passed. It may be that at this point she thinks single payer is an impossibility because she knows intimately what the opposition is like, but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t support universal health care. She does, and has said so repeatedly. And again, I’ll remind you, single payer does NOT equal universal health care, it’s just one way to get there.
@Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker:
This is what is great about the Internet; it doesn’t matter what you say, even explicitly, people who only know you from a comments section (granted I have been interacting with some of you for years) will insist that they know what you “really mean” … especially at those times when you find yourselves on opposite sides of an issue. 🙂
MarkedMan:
I’m aware that there are various good systems, far better than our current system, that involve private insurers in various ways. Nevertheless, I still believe that single-payer is the best solution. I’ll change my mind when I see evidence that I’m wrong. If anyone here has such evidence, I hope they present it.
Monala:
Of course it’s not the only way to get there. I just think it’s the best way to get there. When Clinton says single payer will “never” happen, I think it’s reasonable to expect a serious explanation for why she said that. If you know where I can find that explanation, please tell me.
That depends on a lot of details that neither of us want to analyze in this thread.
I would never accept such a compromise, and we don’t need to. And we only need to get 51% of the public to agree with us, which is going to be easier than you think.
That word (‘rationing’) is, in this context, right-wing bullshit designed to gloss over the fact that all health insurance systems, include 100% private systems, embody some concept of “rationing,” even though obviously that word is never used. So your use of that word makes it hard for me to take you seriously. You might as well ask me a question about “death panels.”
Except that she didn’t make a statement about “at this point.” She said “never.” You are not addressing what she actually said.
David M:
Only if you can show me why it’s not the best solution, which you haven’t done.
A nice example of a complete non-sequitur. No, “down-ticket Democrats” are not going to make this happen. Ultimately the public will make this happen, when there is a president who can convince the public that it’s possible. Therefore the “preferred candidate” is someone who has a broad concept of what’s possible. That’s the opposite of who Clinton is.
In the end, Congress will always go where the people tell them to go. When the president is someone who can convince people to care, and to act, Congress will ultimately follow. The president should be someone who can inspire. That’s not who Clinton is.
Nope. Congressional majorities matter. The country didn’t suddenly decide in 2009 that it was time for health care reform. The people also didn’t decide that they wanted to repeal Obamacare in 2011.
What happened was that enough Democrats were elected to pass health care reform, something that isn’t going to happen again in the near future, which is why the blathering about “Medicare for All” is counterproductive at best. Start working on expanding and improving the system we have and protecting the gains we’ve made.
The “best solution” is one we can achieve, not one that will never happen. The comparison for this obsession with single payer is spending your savings on lottery tickets. Sure, the payoff would be nice, but it’s grossly misguided
Explain how single payer gets passed during Sanders first term and I’ll listen. Otherwise it’s a scam that will damage the push to universal health care, which is what matters.
My biggest problem with Sanders is that he’s promising more than Obama but will deliver less. This issue is a prime example.
My thoughts on Sanders were well summarized by Kevin Drum, as well as a reminder that single payer obsessives haven’t always been reliable allies in the long struggle towards universal health care.
Jukeboxgrad, I was arguing in good faith, but since you think I’m not, I will tell you that your opinion about this is bullsh*t:
There are many issues that far more than 51% of the American public agree with – gun control, for instance – that can’t pass through the Congress we have. Having the agreement of the American public doesn’t matter if we don’t have enough votes in Congress.
I asked about reproductive rights because I saw a discussion on Rod Dreher’s blog at the American Conservative. A lot of his readers are conservative Catholics and conservative Orthodox. I don’t know much about Orthodox Christianity, but Catholicism has a strong social justice tradition, in addition to very outdated reproductive rights beliefs. So this discussion among his readers was about how they might otherwise consider supporting Bernie Sanders because they like his concern about income inequality — if only he didn’t believe in abortion. Knowing that anecdotes do not equal data, this suggests to me that there are conservative people, politicians even, who might support a single payer system if only they could eliminate anything related to birth control or abortion in it.
So what if you need those people in Congress to be the 51%? What if you have 45% of legislators who support single payer, including reproductive care, 45% who oppose (fiscal conservatives, or those who don’t want their tax dollars going to “those people” or whomever), and 6% who will support it, if only all birth control and abortion is disallowed? Would you join forces with the 6% to get single payer?
David M:
It’s always fun to watch a straw man being demolished. I’d like you to show me where Sanders or anyone else has made a prediction or promise that “single payer gets passed during Sanders first term.”
So, just like Clinton, you are making the assertion that single-payer “will never happen,” while also not lifting a finger to address the underlying questions: if it’s the best solution, why shouldn’t we be trying to make it happen? And if it’s not the best solution, then what is?
Thank you for links that answer questions I did not ask, and that do not answer the questions I actually did ask.
Monala:
If your question about “rationing” was in good faith, then you should be able to show me a private insurance system that does not embody a concept of rationing. If you cannot do so, then I need help understanding how your question was in good faith.
That’s a short-term problem, not a long-term problem. Hence the importance of Clinton’s word “never,” which you are still refusing to address.