Despite the beyond-some-of-our-wildest-dreams strides the Bernie Sanders campaign has made since he launched his then longshot bid last April, there are obviously still considerable numbers of people backing Hillary Clinton whose actual ideas and histories would seem more closely matched to that of Sanders. Some presumably have stuck with her, even as her nomination no longer seems inevitable, out of the belief that the possibility of the first female president outweighs their being closer to Sanders on the issues.
I think if Trump is the nominee Clinton or Sanders would be running against someone who is not a conservative Republican. In that instance there is little to go on for deciding who would be stronger. If the opponent is a conservative Republican than certainly Democrats will look back at the losses of people like Humphrey, McGovern, and Mondale and be concerned that Sanders is positioned too far left to win. The best way to win they would conclude would be to be close to the positions of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I think that is why almost every Democratic member of Congress has endorsed Clinton. They greatly fear that Sanders would lose and take the Democrats in Congress down with him. The match-up polls now may mean nothing. Until there is actually two candidates in a general election the match-up polling should be probably be ignored. After the two conventions would be the time to look at the match up.
For a sample of what might happen if Bernie is the Democratic nominee, one need look no further than what happened in Connecticut in 2006. DINO war-monger Joe Lieberman lost his Democratic Senate re-election primary to insurgent anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. Instead of bowing to the will of the Democratic voters, truly sore loser Joe formed a party of one to run an independent candidacy. He brought with him the active endorsement and support of just about all of the Eastern Democratic establishment, including Sens. Clinton, Biden, Schumer, and Obama. Going against the majority of CT Democrats, and with the tacit support of CT Republicans, who threw their support to him, Lieberman squeaked out one more victory, and a defeat for democracy. I strongly suspect that something similar is going to happen if/when Bernie racks up the Democratic nomination. Do not be surprised if the rumored Mike Bloomberg "independent" run for President becomes the unofficial establishment Democratic Party candidacy. They're not going to just roll over and let the "People" have their government back to tax them and jail their criminal Wall Street cronies. They will do whatever undemocratic things they think they have to to retain their power and control over the rest of us.
The events that you and Lrx reference occured in 1968, 1972, 1984 and 2006. years in which any Murkin who wanted a good job could still find one and in many cases actually have a choice of jobs.
Since the 2008 meltdown tens of millions of Murkins have been pushed to the edge where, if they are lucky, they can find a job that pays a fraction of what they were earning before they lost their former jobs. Many are not even that lucky. I believe that the term "social democrat" is far less scary to these Murkins than it was when the steady paychecks were rolling in. Add to that younger Murkins who have not been brainwashed to equate the S word with the US going commie and the "conventional wisdom" becomes obsolete.
Although many US Presidents including Carter, Raygun, Clinton and Dubya certainly never held office outside of their respective states prior to winning the White House, I disagree with Gallagher asserting that "Bernie has not held office outside of Vermont".
Unlike State electeds, every US Congresscritter and Senator regularly deals with national and global issues within the Washington DC cauldron. Bernie has served in both houses for many years.
Please stop it!!! Stop the negatively. Stop the defeatism!!! It's all bullshit. We are going to win the White House. Bernie Sanders is going to achieve great things for the workers We are in the revolution.
Go Bernie go!!!
If you want a woman in the Whitehouse, chances are that Bernie will run with Elizabeth Warren. Women are likely to have the best of both worlds instead of more of the same with a skirt (or pantsuit).
To all the Sanders Supporters on the Left - Please Come Home!
I also want the DP to grow up and support Stein ...
Yup - another Pres we would "need to educate" - why not get one we wouldn't?
YES, here's hoping Elizabeth is the ONE for Bernie.
Hmmm - seems very similar to a comment which you recently posted for another article, but I'll try to reply differently so that things won't get too boring.
Many pundits think that Americans are hungering for REAL change and that this is why long-shots like Bernie and Trump are doing so unexpectedly well even in primary contests where Independents are somewhat of an after-thought. If this is so, then Bernie would have a better chance against ANY Republican nominee than Hillary would simply because Bernie represents change and Hillary represents anything but change (which may be why so many establishment Democrats support her: they just aren't fans of real change).
Polls indicate that Independents support Bernie much more than they do Hillary - and there are more Independents than either Republicans or Democrats.
Even some Republicans and Libertarians support Bernie (as they did Howard Dean a dozen years ago - when, if you will recall, the eventual nominee preferred by the party establishment lost to an unpopular incumbent waging an unpopular war). I think you'd have to look long and hard for any Republicans who support Hillary.
In sum, the situation is very, very different from the one in 1968 (when the Democrats were the ones waging an unpopular war and the party only managed to cough up an aging apologist for it, nice a human being though Hubert was), and 1972 (when Nixon was actually extricating us from that war, was managing to work with a Democratic Congress to accomplish at least some worthwhile actions, and before Watergate had blossomed into what it eventually became), and 1984 (when Reagan was a popular incumbent, Iran-Contra had not yet been outed, and his supply-side chickens had not even begun to come home to roost). America wanted change in 1968 and got it. It wasn't particularly interested in change in 1972 and 1984 and got what it wanted then as well. It was interested in change in 2008 and voted for it but did not get it, the result being that it's even more interested in change now and if the Democratic party won't offer it then it will probably look elsewhere.
There's a fair chance that what you're describing could result in the death of the Democratic party (which would not be a bad thing if they went that route after Bernie got the nomination) - not that the Democratic establishment wouldn't risk this in order to maintain their position of control, of course. In any event, I doubt that many people here would consider that possibility a reason to support Hillary.
It would be nice if the Green party got on board the Bernie bus but since Jill Stein received only 0.36% of the popular vote (including mine) last time around doing so might not make very much difference and I wouldn't fault them for sticking with her despite the fact that Bernie has been far, far more effective in bringing a lot of Green priorities into the national conversation than any candidate of theirs ever has been.
As for Aquifer's reply above, since the majority of Bernie's supporters are Democrats they already ARE home. The majority of the rest are either Independents or new voters with no defined home - until now.
"Therefore, one should not point one's finger at the followers of Trump, but at the followers of Clinton."
i'll take a twofer!
I didn't say that to be negative. I'm giving a warning about just how dirty I think the Democratic establishment/Clintons are willing to play to win. While being hopeful, I've been around politics since the '70's and have steeled myself to having my heart stomped on again. I just keep waiting for the other spiked heel shoe to drop from Hillary. Not trusting her to fight fair, I just have to believe there is some kind of sneaky surprise out there for Bernie and his peeps.
If you had seen, like I did, a photo of the Clintons and Trump at some elitist gala years ago with Hillary beaming up at The Donald you'd know how appropriate your comment is.
Shillary said not long ago that she wanted to be our "champion". Well, this is not the way that a champion operates. Yes, we can expect more of this from Team Clinton, especially if Sanders keeps gaining support and poll numbers. Hillary with her arrogant, entitled "Its my turn" attitude probably knows that this is her last chance to run and she will go ruthless if she has to. My greatest hope is that the public will see this for what it is and that there will be an even bigger backlash against her and for Sanders.
If Sanders gets the nomination I believe that he can win against Herr Trumpf or that Texas slimeball, Ted Cruz. I'm not at all sure Clinton can win, even if I supported her, which I do not.
I'm now concerned that if the nominees are Trump and Bernie, that Mike Bloomberg will, in fact, run as an independent candidate and the establishments of both parties will back him as the "reasonable" centrist candidate. Bernie had to promise to support Hillary if she is the nominee, but she didn't have to promise to support Bernie if he won. For precedent, look at the 2006 CT Senate race and how Dem. nominee, anti-war candidate Ned Lamont was thrown under the bus by the party when he beat Joe Lieberman fair and square in the primary, then Lieberman ran as an independent "sore loser" in the general - with the backing of the entire party establishment, including Hillary, Biden, Schumer, and Obama. I could easily see that happening again.
There's something wrong with the title here. "Clinton Supporters"? "Left"?
Those people aren't the Left. I actually KNOW people on the Left and these people aren't the Left. However they MIGHT be republicans in leftist's clothing.