Home | About | Donate

Sanders Supporters Are Not Sheep... They’re the Future


#1

Sanders Supporters Are Not Sheep... They’re the Future

Tom Gallagher

When it comes to their take on Bernie Sanders supporters, there's a strange congruity between those who see themselves to the left of his campaign and the Clinton supporters to its right. From the one side, among the maybe two per cent of American socialists who do not support him, comes the peculiar charge that what Sanders is doing is acting as a “sheepdog” who is leading an idealistic band of mostly youthful supporters into the realm of the Democratic Party, where they will be corrupted and vote for Hillary Clinton in November.


#3

This election is really about the establishment versus the people. HRC is clearly the establishment candidate. The Republican virus (my mistyping got autocorrected to virus from circus, and I'm staying with that [Is AI here?]) is a sideshow. Can Bernie, the people's candidate win? Let's hope so as otherwise the ossification of the corrupt establishment will continue, rendering its ultimate destruction all the more violent.


#4

My thinking on where Democrats stand this morning after the Arizona, Utah, and Idaho voting is this: A major collision between the Bernie and Hillary faction is about to really surface as the Bernie Sanders faction asserts itself in the West. The Clintons will fight tooth and nail to win, but the divide will only become more apparent possibly leading to a convention of 1968 Chicago proportions. A new party may arise, something that both Henry Wallace and say, Eleanor Roosevelt would support, maybe The Social Democratic Party…


#5

A pundit recently observed that "Jeb Bush's campaign never took off because he is an establishment candidate in an anti-establishment election year".

Being an anti-establishment candidate in an anti-establishment election year" Sanders needs to stay in the race as long as his donors keep supporting him.


#7

The whole "unification" (or not) argument is irrelevant.

The Democratic Party establishment doesn't care how long Sanders stays in. Just as they failed to demand a recount in Florida in 2000 because they knew they could make Ralph Nader the fall guy for Gore losing, the Party will make Sanders the fall guy if Clinton loses in November. Having a fall guy distracts voters from examining the Party itself. If Clinton is the nominee boatloads of corporate money will continue to fund the Party irrespective of the November election results.


#8

Vote for Clinton, the 'more effective' evil!

Sanders 2016

I wouldn't vote for Clinton if she were endorsed by Jesus and running against Satan.


#9

Yes, no voting for Satan as the "lesser evil."


#10

I believe Bernie came at this with the attitude of trying to take over the Democratic Party for true progressives, which I agree with, although I've been tilting at windmills all of my adult life anyway. I believe most of us who came along with Bernie have no intention of supporting Hillary if she prevails in the primaries. We are truly Bernie-only voters, who will go back to voting for parties like the Greens. The Clinton faction is sorely mistaken if they think they can bully us into "falling in line". Bull pucky. Ain't gonna happen. We want her to lose the general if we can't defeat her now. It's better to start over in four years than suffer through eight more years of the Clinton/DLC Kleptocracy. Nothing ever changes for the better if Hillary wins, but taking power away from them gives a new, younger, more attractive, truly progressive candidate a chance to emerge in 2020.


#12

Really, I see a Clinton/Trump general election as a contest of body counts. Both of those creeps are going to kill a lot of people with the power of the Presidency at their fingertips. This is truly a matter of life and death, and truly a matter of degree

I think Trump has a ceiling for a couple of reasons:

  • The powers that be are unlikely to follow truly insane commands. (i.e. "I want you to nuke ISIS.")
  • Trump looks after Trump's own properties and is sneakily pragmatic. He isn't likely to start a nuclear war because he personally has too much real estate involved.

Hillary, I honestly believe, has no ceiling on the number of people she may kill. She's never said no to any war, nor any whim of the MIC, nor any neoliberal policy put in front of her. Never. Not one time. No fly zone in Syria? Yes! Shoot down Russina planes in Syria? Yes! Troops in Ukraine? Yes! Nuke Iran? Yes, obliterate it!

This is why neocons like Dick Cheney are putting out public statements approving of a Hillary Presidency.

Couple all this with her war-mongering financiers in Israel and on War Street and it's a total powder keg. The Queen of Chaos could so very easily bumble us into WWIII. In fact, I have a hard time imagining her not causing a major or terminal war.

So if body counts matter to you, and they really should, Trump appears the far more humane and compassionate vote. Hillary is that bad.


#13

Given the FBI's history in infiltrating Environmental, Women's, and Civil Rights Groups in order to dilute, control, or distort their agendas... why rule out THAT possibility now?

"In one debate about the Sanders campaign that I participated in, the leader of one of the socialist parties went so far as to say that if Karl Marx himself were to come back from the grave and run for president of the United States, he wouldn’t vote for him if he ran as a Democrat – the triumph of ideology not only over reality, but even over imagined reality! In all, the disdain some of these organizations and individuals display for one of most successful mass movements of the left in this country’s history has to make you wonder if they haven’t become so used to being marginal to the nation’s political life that they’re now simply more comfortable with things staying that way."

Unconsciously, if they are sincere, and consciously if they are not... these "purists" are ultimately arguing FOR the status quo since their stated objectives have ZERO chance of becoming instituted at this time in U.S. history.

This is right-on, and useful information that bears repeating:

"Clinton’s been running for the job for ten years and she’s been treated as a virtual incumbent by party establishment and mainstream media alike. As the New York Times recently reported, if you assigned a dollar value to the “free media” that the candidates have received, the tally is $746 million for Clinton to $321 million for Sanders, an advantage well in excess of 2-1. (Trump has received coverage worth $1.898 billion, but that’s another story for another day.)"


#14

People pressing for revolutionary change are the opposite of those defending the status quo. They may out of necessity take a longer view, but that is not equivalent to arguing in support of the status quo.

You have been signaling that you'll vote Hillary if Bernie is not nominated. There is no stronger defense of the status quo than that. Stop dodging your own flimsy liberalism by attacking political radicals.

Yes, they expose your complicity with the powers that be, and that is embarrassing for you, as it should be. Deal with it. Look yourself in the mirror and admit that you're just another useless liberal.


#15

This IS the logic of the typical Trump supporter (or apologist). Coming from a white male, YOU have little skin in the game.

After all, it's not YOU who will feel the pain of Trump's anti-Hispanic policies.

And it's not YOU who will feel the pain of the Muslim community.

It's not YOU who will feel that Black Lives Matters is irrelevant and must be pushed to the proverbial back burner.

Not YOU who will be on the receiving end of yet more odious Christian Fundamentalist influence over women's rights up to and including control over their own bodies.

Nor will it be YOU who will be privileged to Trump's cartoon comic book concepts of the War on Terror, the "righteousness" of blindly bombing ISIS or condoning torture.

It's amazing what the lack of empathy so endemic in so many white males does to their capacity to see and feel the world as others do!

Mother Earth also doesn't have another 4 years!


#16

Maybe Sanders supporters should either celebrate his winning the election or call for a third party to be created - a Progressive Party that isn't the Green Party or the socialist or whatever party but just a party for the left, independents and progressives. The Repubs on the right, the Dems as centrists and the Progressives as the left - a third (independent) party?


#17

Really? Prove it, fool!

What I oppose are disgusting misogynists like "St. Jimmy" who constantly refers to Hillary as a bitch or a whore. Straight out of a porno film.

I am opposed to the policies of corporate capitalism under its Shock Doctrine mania, and more opposed to the MIC... so Hillary is NOT my choice.

I voted for Jill Stein and Nader in prior elections.

However, with all this being said (not that it's ANY of your business... since you think you have the right to misrepresent my positions)... what IS curious is that in a purportedly OPEN forum, that the majority who post here show more allegiance to Trump than ANY Democrat... although some do support Mr. Sanders.

It's reminiscent of how many saluted Ron Paul in prior election years... as shown from comment threads.

It's no secret that I am convinced that I.T. specialists hired by military adjuncts are stationed in these opinion-shaping threads EVERY day. And close to election time, their numbers increase. I would not be surprised if it's the same 10-15 people who've been doing this JOB for years... as the litany of screen names constantly changes, but the lines, tag team maneuvers, and general right wing style Libertarian views do not.

You are a classic example. But it would take more courage (or balls, if you prefer) to honestly admit the OTHER screen names that you've personally deployed... then you've likely got!


#18

Those without balls sure are worthless, aren't they? Kinda strange statement for someone so purportedly opposed to Mars Rules to attempt to shame others for a supposed lack of masculinity.

But then again, that's par for your worthless contribution to this place. Lots of tiresome spew coupled with drippy liberal identity politics blather, all coated in your trademark, oozy paranoid stench.

Let me hit you with a news flash: Naomi Klein is a liberal who has already stated she will vote Hillary if she is the nominee. Maybe you should read her new book, This Changes Nothing. I'm sure you'd love it.


#19

Odd but Trump voters are saying pretty much the same thing? Why would that be? They say 'You wouldn't want to vote for Hillary right?'

Actually no I don't but I don't want Trump to take over even more so, Hillary may be as bad as Obama but that would still be much better than Trump. There is no vote for the Greens so give us a break. It is a fantasy and a wasted vote or in this case it would be just one less vote that Trump has to beat. Anyone on the left who says they'd rather see Trump win instead of Hillary hasn't been listening to what he says. Geez how dumb are we anymore?

Want to build a wall? A wall? You are being dumbed down big time. A wall huh? Yeah okay. Explain that like an intellectual. Go ahead try it. Explain voting for a wall to be built and listen to how stupid you'll sound.


#22

Whoa there. I'm not suggesting anyone vote for Trump. I said it would be a more humane alternative. Voting third-party or abstaining are obviously better choices, particularly if a person lives in a "safe state" where the outcome is pre-ordained.

If a person doesn't live in a safe state, well, maybe they have a problem. Personally, I'd still not want the blood of either of these freaks on my hands, and would not vote for either.


#23

It'd sure be nice to know what Sanders actually thinks about this when he tucks himself into bed at night. Every day he stares out at gigantic, rapturous crowds of hopeful young people looking to him to help save them from a rapacious oligarchy. Can he really deliver them to the tender mercies of the Queen of Chaos? To the very embodiment of what he's been railing against?

He's got to feel like his soul is on the line.


#28

Again talk of a third party. How about Sanders/ Warren (might take some arm twisting). Have Trump be a new office of Entertainment. Or "The Deal Maker" like a designated hitter. The D would have a weekly TV show with big CASH Prizes. Bills that get hung up in congress can get decided on the show!!! This could work.


#29

I respect your sincerity but I disagree with that formula. This is not a personal me only election. I am not making a personal statement political or otherwise. I am participating in a nationwide election along with every other voter in this nation. A presidential election is for the person who you think is the better candidate among the choices 'everybody' picked together. I may feel the game is rigged and others cheated and whatever but it still comes down to who everybody picked to run. My job as a citizen is NOT to pick my choice only but to pick whomever I think will make the better leader from among the choices whether I like them or not.

To my mind Trump is trouble down the road. I think Hillary has major flaws but she is more of a known quantity than is Trump for example. I want to vote for Bernie because I think he will be a better president than will Hillary. If Hillary hadn't been married to Bill, she wouldn't even be a candidate in her own right. She is basically telling us to look at Bill's record and then vote for her. Bernie has his own record and a long and very experienced one in his own right. Trump has none.

We vote along with everybody else for the better candidate that people have chosen ( yes I know that they have been rigging the game) as candidates. My personal favoritism actually shouldn't influence my choice. Just as if I were a minority that I shouldn't only vote for a minority or a catholic vote only for a catholic etc.

I should vote for who objectively would be the better president. Trump is at the bottom of the list.