Ignore Clinton & Co., the media and the White House – Bernie Sanders can win
A guy who can still garner $4 million in 3 days – after losing five states – with contributions around $27 can’t be counted out.
Dominica R. Convertino of politicallydc.com has the best take I’ve read on Hillary Clinton as the not-so-presumptive Democratic nominee. You can read the entire article here – and some excerpts below:
Throughout the last few weeks, mainstream media outlets and political pundits alike have incessantly derided the many supporters of Bernie Sanders who claim that they will not be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, should she win the Democratic nomination. Pundits argue that if they effectively fail to rally behind Hillary, Bernie’s supporters will be to blame in November if Donald Trump is subsequently elected . . . this entire debate over whether or not Bernie’s supporters should throw their weight behind Clinton in the general election is (intentionally) misleading, as it maintains an underlying assumption that Hillary Clinton is the inevitable Democratic nominee; an assumption that we have been force-fed for years by both the media and operatives of the Democratic Party. Despite the incredible efforts to push this narrative, millions of Americans continue to outright-reject the ‘inevitability’ of Hillary Clinton, and have been doing so long before Bernie Sanders (who is undoubtedly an inspiring alternative to Clinton) stepped into the race. By focusing on whether or not the supporters of Bernie Sanders would be willing to vote for Hillary Clinton as a potential-nominee not only sets the stage for the media to act as if the primary race has somehow been decided, but it forces progressive figures (who otherwise wholeheartedly support Bernie Sanders in the primary) to needlessly pledge their support to Hillary Clinton for the general election, effectively shifting the narrative . . . we are not currently in a general election; we are in a primary election. Additionally, we are not currently deciding between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump; we are currently deciding between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. So, it raises the question: why would any rational political observer believe that Bernie’s supporters should simultaneously pledge their hypothetical, future-support to the candidate who they are clearly trying to prevent?
. . . to say that Bernie’s supporters have an obligation to vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election assumes that the two candidates are advocating for the same things, which is objectively false. While Hillary has made it clear that the objective of her potential presidency would be to maintain already-existing policies, she has also made it clear that she is unwilling to fight for significant change, in order to avoid a ‘contentious debate’ with her Republican counterparts. Hillary Clinton, despite all of her recent efforts to emulate Bernie Sanders’ unwavering record of advocating for the people, cannot get past the fact that she is, in many ways, the poster child for the corrupt system which Bernie is arguing to reform . . . perhaps we should instead flip the script and ask Hillary Clinton supporters to grant their support to arguably the best Democratic candidate in modern political history, Bernie Sanders. Out of all of the candidates on both sides in this election, Bernie Sanders is unequivocally considered the most liked, the most electable, the most ideologically-consistent, and the biggest advocate for the interests of the American people. So, perhaps we should ask ourselves: why is the Democratic Party trying so hard to elect a candidate who the American people have so consistently and so resoundingly rejected, at the expense of a Democratic candidate who the people so desperately want? If the Democratic party establishment is unwilling to listen to the will of their voters, then they deserve the uncertainty that a Clinton nomination brings, for Hillary Clinton’s immeasurable weaknesses as a presidential candidate are not the fault of Bernie Sanders’ supporters, but her own.
As Ms. Convertino expertly points out, we’re in a primary, not a general, election. And as Bernie Sanders said, it’s “absurd” to think that he’d exit the race:
The bottom line is that when only half of the American people have participated in the political process … I think it is absurd for anybody to suggest that those people not have a right to cast a vote . . . .
Though the media is hashing out how Trump v. Hillary debates would play out, or attack ads they’d launch against each other, many of us are saying, “Not so fast.” It’s insulting in the extreme to have Clinton herself, her supporters and the establishment media, punditry, and even the White House force-feeding us Hillary Clinton before the final tally.
There are multiple reasons Bernie can win, not the least of which is that Clinton is a highly flawed candidate; she polls terribly with white men, even worse with young people. Rust belt black men are not buying what she’s selling. Her best states, in the south, are behind her. She might have won five states on Tuesday, but she squeaked out wins in Illinois and Missouri. Bernie has stronger states ahead – and despite the media blackout, they’re feelin’ the Bern. At the convention, Bernie can win – because as we get closer and closer to the close of the primary, it will become clearer that Clinton is unlikely to win in a general election. And the more people learn about her, the more people actually explore the real record behind the facile stump lines, the more they realize that. Les Leopold at CommonDreams.org (one of the few sites that haven’t become All Hillary/All the Time, by the way) breaks it down:
The media tells us that Hillary has a lock on the nomination. That news should make her supporters extremely nervous, and not because the prognosticators have been wrong so many times already. All Democrats should worry because her major policy and character flaws could leave us with a Republican president this fall.
As H.A. Goodman of the Huffington Post noted, there’s still that sticky little wicket of Clinton’s secret email server floating out there, which only contributes to the deep distrust America has for her. Recent reports indicate that Clinton knew her emails wouldn’t be secure long before she set up the server in her basement. With a leaky vessel like Clinton – even with the White House clamoring for her nomination – there’s a lot of leeway for a lot to happen between now and the convention.
As noted on truth-out.org,
Over the next few weeks, the primary schedule shifts to the West and upper Midwest, where Sanders has already had success and where he’s favored to pick up even more victories.
If Sanders manages to win by big margins in states like Wyoming or Wisconsin, he can whittle away at Clinton’s delegate lead — which, despite what you might hear on the mainstream media, only grew by a net total of 57 delegates last night.
But more importantly, success out West and in the Midwest could win Sanders some much-needed momentum and media coverage, which will mean a lot when voters in big states like Pennsylvania, New York and California head to the polls later on in the year.
Jaxter over at Daily Kos (clearly bucking Daily Kos sitelord Markos Moulitsas’ “get the fuck on the Clinton bandwagon already after March 15th” edict) broke it down state by state here, and he’s predicting a big Sanders comeback.
Let’s be clear: The only thing “inevitable” about Hillary Clinton is the supposed inevitability that the establishment – DNC, mainstream media, her political cronies – has tried to convince us exists. That’s it, nothing more. Let’s listen to Bernie Sanders, who recently reminded us,
No one said a political revolution would be easy.