John Judis: "I'm Voting for Bernie, but on One Condition"
Interesting piece on TPM by John Judis (yes, that John Judis -- co-author of The Emerging Democratic Majority). I haven't really heard this attitude before in a primary election context. While I am fully aware that actual discussion is virtually impossible here in the DU GDP forum, I am curious what people think about this. As a Hillary supporter, I will admit that this article does resonate with me somewhat.
I did a search and was surprised that this hasn't been posted here on DU yet. But I guess it makes sense given that the article is somewhat off message for partisans on either side of the Hillary/Bernie split.
Full article is here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/voting-for-bernie
Why, then, vote for him at all? For me, it’s entirely about the issues he is raising, which I believe are important for the country’s future. Hillary Clinton and her various boosters in the media have made the argument that it’s impractical and even irresponsible to raise a demand like “Medicare for all” and “free public college” that could not possibly get through the next Congress, even if Democrats eke out a majority in the Senate. They presumably want a candidate to offer programs that could be the result of protracted negotiations between a Democratic president and Speaker Paul Ryan – like a two percent increase in infrastructure spending in exchange for a two percent reduction in Medicaid block grants. I disagree with this approach to politics.
What Sanders is proposing are political guideposts – ideals, if you like – according to which we can judge whether incremental reforms make sense. He is describing, whether you like them or not, objectives toward which we Americans should be aspiring. That’s a central activity in politics. Should it be confined to issues of Democracy or National Affairs? Or is it the kind of activity that is entirely appropriate for a nominating contest? Ronald Reagan and the conservatives thought so during the 1970s. And I think Democrats should be thinking this way now. So I applaud Bernie Sanders for not limiting his proposals to what might appear on a President’s often-ignored budget requests.
(snip)
Does the country really need turning around? Sanders has been derided for holding up Denmark and other Scandinavian countries as examples. They are far different from the US, and they are also beginning to experience problems sustaining their own social democracies. But I think in comparing life there with life in the United States, there is one useful point to be made. . What people in these countries enjoy is not assured lifetime employment or control over their workplaces, but a degree of basic security about their lives that is missing in the United States. Americans endure needless anxiety about access to education and healthcare and about being left penniless or homeless. Our social safety net doesn’t just need mending, but replacement. It’s worn out. And Sanders provides a set of guidelines in his proposals that will move exactly in that direction That’s why he gets my vote on April 26 – even if I hope Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
Here's what Ed Kilgore had to say at New York Mag about Judis's piece:
(snip)
...primary exit polls consistently show voters concerned about electability are heavily tilting toward Hillary. After all, you don't need a political-science degree to suspect that a 75-year-old self-styled democratic socialist with a Senate voting record a bit to the left of tofu is going to get Dukakised to death after a good, vicious billion-dollar Republican general-election ad campaign. That makes you wonder how many Hillary voters there are who'd pull the lever for Sanders if they really thought he could win the general election. And it also makes you wonder exactly how many Sanders voters like Judis don't really want him to win the nomination because they don't think he can win the general election — or want to fence in Clinton ideologically because they think she can.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Bernie. The reasons stated in the article are the reasons why I support Bernie for the nomination, and I will kick in my financial support for the first time in years (fixed income) if he does. It is nicely written, but it really is a pointless article. Voting for him in a "props to you" manner is foolhardy.
For many of us, we cannot afford to vote for Hillary and we can't afford to see our party slide further to the right. I know that angers Hillary supporters, but I took my time with my decision and we cannot survive more of the same.
Side note: If you place the more vocal ones on ignore, conversations here in GD: Primary become enlightening and polite even. I am sorry I had to remove mine for MIRT. 
Activism, cleansed of the activist. Implemented by corporatists. 
--imm
To believe that the Clintons (remember two for one?!"
would try to
implement Bernie's ideas is pure fantasy.
To believe that HRC can strike a better deal with Congress than
Bernie is only a hope without any substantiation.
The biggest fear I have is that if she gets into the WH the TPP
will be signed very quickly due to the first Fast Track vote. I also
think that is the main reason for Obama to indirectly support her.
Once that has been passed any and every politician has very
little power in comparison to the banks and large corporations.
If Judis trusts her to fight the TPP, then he is plainly wrong. There
are good reasons why she is distrusted, her flip flops over the years
and especially on the campaign trail prove that.
