The False Mirror: If my candidate doesn’t win, we’ll lose the Presidential election

[nashville_brook]

This is a x-post from GD-P, but it's probably more relevant here. Establishment Dems are attacking progressive candidates in FL based on the assumption that they'll "ruin Hillary Clinton's chances of election," should they win their primaries.

It seems this is an obvious form of entitlement. We're more than 8 months away from the primaries in FL, and HRC has lost to an up-and-comer before. Seems to be unnecessary way to fragment the party (and the electorate, generally).



The False Mirror: If my candidate doesn’t win, we’ll lose the Presidential election

https://thefloridasqueeze.wordpress.com/?p=12796&preview=true

According to Jean Piaget, all children go through a phase of egocentrism, when their developing brains don’t yet differentiate the child from the rest of the world, and other people. For example, a child might give his mother a toy dump truck for her birthday, thinking that’s exactly what she’d want. Because that’s exactly what he’d want.

Egocentrism fuels political rhetoric. In a way, it has to. A candidate has to believe her way is the best way, and go forth to sell that version of reality. After all, it’s a founding principle of our Democracy that “out of many, one” — E Pluribus Unum.

But when the urge to unite is forged of narrow interests, it’s no longer an ideal. Instead, it’s a bent version of E Pluribus Unum, where differences are masked, and interests are ignored. The “many” are told to sit down and let “the one” speak for us.

It’s easy to tell the two apart. One feels like bullying, and the other feels like participation. One invites the many to participate in Democracy, and the other sees participation as a threat.

A few months ago, when Alan Grayson was hinting at a run for the Senate, a low-level party operative argued here that if he were to do so, it would result in Democrats losing the Presidential election. The egocentricity of “if my candidate doesn’t win, everyone loses,” is obvious, but I’ll go ahead and spell it out: in a presidential election year, ballot voting is almost always straight-ticket. It’s an extraordinary claim, backed up by zero evidence, that a down-ballot candidate would have the reverse effect on the top of the ticket.

Recently on WMFE’s Intersection, political commentator, Dick Batchelor made the same extraordinary claim: “if Grayson is the nominee, he could hurt Hillary Clinton in the Presidential race.” Instead of welcoming voices into the Democratic space (out of many, one), this message is “beat it kid — you’re trashing up the joint with your message of economic equality.” It’s this kind of bullying that made Grayson dig in. It also reveals entitlement by assuming that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. That may well be the case, but there’s plenty of good Democrats in Florida who are interested in the other Presidential candidates. Is it really necessary to alienate them so early in the race? What should be of concern to the Clinton campaign, is if she can win back the progressive populists flocking to the Bernie Sanders message, should she win the primary.

(snip)

In political campaigns it’s completely understandable that the world would seem to revolve around your candidate. But in terms of organizational structure, egocentrism — forcing an inversion of “out of many, one” — drains the life out of the party. The rank-and-file come to us to be part of something, not to be told who they can vote for.

Primaries are our means of keeping the faith with the rank and file. Embracing a true primary process shows respect to the voters and to Democracy itself.


see the rest here --> https://thefloridasqueeze.wordpress.com/?p=12796&preview=true

[99th_Monkey]

1. It's the most ridiculous childish accusation being made against Bernie

or anyone for that matter. But I haven't heard Bernie supporters telling Hillary she
"shouldn't be running, because she'll spoil Bernie's chance" of winning the GE.

In fact, it's hard to even imagine this ^ happening, laughable

i mean WTF are Primaries FOR anyway??

[Hydra]

2. You mean we're not supposed to just let the coronated one waltz right in?

What do you think this is, a representative democracy??

[merrily]

6. To "coronate" the DNC's preferred candidate, apparently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776064

Certainly not to challenge the anointed one from his or left, fercrsissakes.

[MisterP]

3. the people who say a primary's "sabotage" are the same ones saying we should do primaries

and not vote third-party our you'll Destroy Us All! plus every state has a DNC primary-shenanigan story to tell

they're also the ones who endorse Pubs in FL and *Christie* in NJ and then point the finger

when their campaign plan of "nothing whatsoever" fails it's the voters' fault for not responding to perfection

[nashville_brook]

14. the donor class says it's okay b/c they're "reasonable republicans"

i've heard it too many times. "we're not going to challenge ___________, because they're a 'reasonable republican.'"

"We'd rather have this 'reasonable republican' than chance an election."

some people wonder if we've been infiltrated by Republicans. I wonder if we've been infiltrated by idiots.

[Cleita]

4. I have had some very good Democrats tell me they will not vote for Hillary if she's the candidate.

Therefore, it seems to me that the Democratic Party needs to think about that. I think it's fine that Joe Biden might run. I would like to see other more diverse candidates too including another woman and another person of color, black or hispanic would do. I'm sure Bernie will win over any of them and it will push Hillary to the back of the line as I think she is the least popular candidate all around. When I ask conservatives who are thinking about Bernie because they can't stand any of the Republican candidates, why they don't prefer Hillary, because she's closer to Republican ideals than Bernie is, they tell me they never would vote for her. That they can't stand her. Yet they like Bernie. Go figure.

[merrily]

9. I have too. They will stay home, write in or vote third party.

I've heard all those things from once very solid Democrats.

Moreover, who can attack Bush more forcefully? Who can present voters with the clearest choice? Of Hillary, Sanders and O'Malley, I see Hillary as the least able to do that.

[eridani]

18. Most Dems i know will vote for the nominee. However, getting out there to knock doors--

--and do phonebanking is quite another matter. It's different when you have to kick yourself in the ass to do your duty, as opposed to joyfully looking forward to the same.

Most of the people refusing to consider voting for Clinton are the alienated previous non-participants who have been motivated by the Sanders campaign.

[merrily]

21. That is definitely not true of the people I know who have been saying they won't

vote for her.

[GoneFishin]

28. ^ This ^. The assertion that there will be no penalty to the party for saddling us with

another corporatist seems to be a form of wishful thinking.

[MisterP]

15. political position isn't a neat dot on a spectrum or graph

most people are basically congeries of various positions, often contradictory or flip-floppy--and care about a candidate's perceived reliability as much as their stated positions (especially with a human weathervane)

[Cleita]

16. So whom are you for?eom

[MisterP]

17. check my sigline ...

[merrily]

25. That's who you're against.

[A Simple Game]

5. Interesting.

when Alan Grayson was hinting at a run for the Senate, a low-level party operative argued here that if he were to do so, it would result in Democrats losing the Presidential election.

“if Grayson is the nominee, he could hurt Hillary Clinton in the Presidential race.”

It would appear that the Democratic powers in Florida don't think Hillary would have any coattails. It would be a very poor Presidential candidate that could be dragged down by a fellow Democrat running down ticket. Besides doesn't Grayson have to run in a primary of his own?

[merrily]

7. If someone really thinks Grayson can cost Hillary the election, the issue is not coattails, but coat

[nashville_brook]

10. that is such a good point. for the win!

that does seem to be the assumption. highlighting that fact points up how disingenuous the claim is.

that would make HRC the very definition of a weak candidate.

[artislife]

11. It's like she's a snow leopard

And we got to save her.







Well, she isn't.

[passiveporcupine]

8. It seems that Hillary has enough votes to win

So, if Hillary can win the general with her votes, and Bernie wins the primary, and all those Hillary votes switch to Bernie, then he should be a breeze winning the general, no?

Funny how that works.

[L0oniX]

12. I don't want a repeat of 2014 but I expect it to happen again if Hillary wins the primary.

We need a candidate that isn't the same ol we've been getting. It would be especially nice if legacy name recognition and or gender was not a factor. How stupid it is to vote because you've heard the name lots of times or because a person is black, white, brown, green, etc or a woman, man. Stability, strong track record of making the correct choices, unpretentious, down to earth, focused on the important issues, are just some of the qualities we need in a leader.

[nashville_brook]

13. that's my fear as well...altho, 1980 is the year that I go back to.

there was a liberal challenge to Carter from Kennedy, that ended in the primary. the base was shunned by the party. at the same time there was ascendant regressive populism, and a volatile electorate.

seems the party hasn't learned anything from history. not 2008, 2014 or 1980.

we better hope if HRC gets the nod, there's an equally problematic GOP candidate (or a 3rd party challenge from the right). we might have a fighting chance against Jeb, but that would be one LOW turnout general election. but at least it would be equally low turnout candidates instead of one who's electrified the electorate and against one who was coronated.

if the GOP manages to nominate a firebrand, she can't win. bernie would have a fighting chance, but HRC wouldn't be able to pull it off, with her negatives. mistrust has become her brand -- it won't matter how much money she has. money can't buy trust.

[merrily]

22. The one Democrat who may have been able to defeat Reagan in 1980 may have been Ted Kennedy.

[nashville_brook]

26. yep.

[merrily]

27. The lesson from 1980 should have been very different from the one we've been fed ever since, namely,

never try to primary an incumbent.

Now, they're trying to feed us, "ALL primaries bad."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776064

We need to resist that with everything we have.

[nashville_brook]

30. dang -- i had to bookmark that. fantastic analysis.

i think this is a central issue for the party -- are we actually a democratic party that embraces democracy, or are we a corporate board that rubber stamps what the CEOs want?

[merrily]

32. If "they" wanted us to be a democratic Democratic Party, "they" would never have

created super delegates or discouraged primaries.

thanks for the kind words. This must be my day for compliments. I've had three great ones.

[Cleita]

19. If she is our candidate she will not win over the oil oligarchy canidate.

It's that simple. They are both playing the same game. A good game player knows you don't win that way.

[merrily]

23. Looking at it from another POV, you ALWAYS win that way.

It's no accident that the Koch brothers funded both the DLC and the Tea Party. (According to Jean Mayer of the New Yorker, they may even have conceived of the Tea Party right around the same time they were serving on the Executive Council of the DLC. It's possible: Both are certainly movements within a major political party that seek to make the party more conservative, by working from within.)

Carroll Quigley, a professor of Bubba's whom Bubba has identified as a big influence, says that the closer the two parties are to each other, the better it is for financial markets because financial markets supposedly do best when predictability is high. Ergo, the least change from one administration to the next, the better financial markets like it. Or so, Quigley said.

In any event, apart from ego, the Bushes and the Clintons will all do just fine, regardless of who wins the next election. They'll even do just fine if Sanders wins it.

[GoneFishin]

29. Exactly. We can't win that way, but the Kochs win either way. A 'D' versus an 'R', they don't

give a shit as long as there is a "$" after the name.

[Cleita]

31. Well, of course. We must keep the financial markets well being on the top of our priorities.

No wonder America is going to Hell in a hand basket.

[merrily]

34. Since jobs are gone and more are disappearing, being a member of the investor class

is one of few ways to make money in the US anymore. Fast food, Wall Street, nursing--not many ways.

I used to wonder why PBS was airing more and more shows on how to invest in the stock market. Now, I get it.

[eridani]

20. The worst possible outcome is Clinton vs Bush.

2016 will then set a record for lowest presidential year turnout without an incumbent. The young and the alienated will just stay home.

[merrily]

24. Republicans, pissed off from losing more Presidential elections since Reagan than they would like,

will turn out, though. They'll want to win this one, and they won't much care if their candidate is St. Ronnie or his co-star.

[SoapBox]

33. I will be happy to eat crow...

But I truly feel that if it's HRC and Brother Dopey...she will lose.

There is strong Bush burnout but when push comes to shove, the Hillary burnout is bigger.

I will write in Bernie.

She will not get my vote.

[merrily]

35. Not only that, but there is always the Bush beer test.

Liquor gives me a headache, so I don't drink much. Maybe that's why I never understood the "Who would you rather have a beer with" test for choosing a POTUS. And, in the unlikely event that I would have to have a beer with any nominee for POTUS, I'd pick a Kerry or a Gore over Dimsin any day. Apparently, that means I'm out of step with America.

See, I told you I didn't get the beer test.