Wednesday, May 11, 2016

SANDERS CAMPAIGN MANAGER: GET OUT YOUR OWN DAMN VOTE, HILLARY

This is only partly helpful:
Bernie Sanders' campaign manager acknowledged Wednesday that the Democratic candidate's team must keep its supporters from voting for Donald Trump in the general election, even as a spate of recent polls and exit poll data suggested that the Vermont senator's backers could bolt for the Trump train if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

"We're going to have to reach out to voters to keep them from voting for Trump," Jeff Weaver said in an interview with CNN, after it was pointed out that an exit poll of West Virginia Democrats voting for Sanders showed that 43 percent would support Trump against Clinton, while 27 percent would vote for the former secretary of state and 28 percent said neither.

But if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Weaver added, "she'll have to reach out to the millions of people who support Sen. Sanders and his vision for transforming the American economy and the political system."
If I'm reading this correctly, Weaver is saying that the message from the Sanders camp will be "Don't vote Trump." It's not going to be "Vote Clinton." "Don't vote Trump" encompasses many other options -- "Don't vote at all," "Vote Jill Stein," "Vote Gary Johnson" (weed!), even "Write in Bernie Sanders on the general election ballot" (don't laugh, that's an idea that a number of people are actually discussing seriously).

I don't really believe there'll be a lot of Sanders defections to Trump. I think there are several reasons that nearly half of West Virginia Sanders supporters said they'd back Trump over Clinton in the fall: The state may be the last place where there are a lot of Democrats who are still politically conservative; the primary was open to independents who had no reason to vote in an already settled Republican contest; Clinton had angered residents by saying that coal jobs are going to continue disappearing. These are voters who already vote for conservative Democrats sometimes and Republicans the rest of the time. The state has always been a certain GOP state in the general election, regardless of the fall candidates (unless somehow Jim Webb managed to win the Democratic nomination).

So Weaver's offer deals with only a small part of the problem. It's swell as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.

I'm saying this even though I agree with Weaver that Clinton will "have to reach out" to Sanders voters. No one's denying that. But in order to beat Trump, everyone's going to have to make an effort to turn out the vote for the one person who'll be able to beat him.

I know I'm supposed to read this as Team Sanders driving a hard bargain in order to get platform concessions. I worry that it's more. I've seen enough anger on the Sanders side (and, yes, at times on the Clinton side) that I'm not going to bet the rent money on a rapprochement. In that case, we may regret 2016 as much as we regret 2000.

I foresee a big uptick in attention for Jill Stein, starting as soon as Sanders concedes. What the hell else will Salon do when Sanders is out of the race? I'm certain that H.A. Goodman and Walker Bragman will instantly switch over to being tireless Stein supporters. And why wouldn't the mainstream media reach out for yet another Everyone-hates-Hillary story? On the right, I expect the Murdoch media to begin encouraging her campaign -- I'm guessing we'll see Stein regularly on Fox in the fall.

Look at the tightening Clinton-Trump poll from Reuters, and consider Thomas Edsall's observation that Trump does best in online polls, a sign that he may have support from many voters who don't want to acknowledge their Trump leanings to in-person or telephone pollsters. (Mike the Mad Biologist has already referred to this as the "Trump effect," a mirror-image "Bradley effect.") This race could get ugly. And I'm not sure Jeff Weaver really cares about the outcome.

23 comments:

AllieG said...

If Sanders doesn't campaign wholeheartedly for Clinton starting with his final concession speech, he will be finished in Democratic politics whether Clinton wins or loses. He knows this. He may be crabby, but he's nobody's fool. As for any followers who hold themselves above such a sellout as voting for Hillary (a small minority, it's true), most are of the leftier-than-thou variety who would rather Trump won to validate their "America, God ain't it awful" worldview. They call it heightening the contradictions, but it's really pleasure from misery.
If Trump is elected by the votes of those ashamed to admit it, well, so be it. But I doubt that as well. Odds are Trump is getting the bounce that comes from wrapping up a nomination, while there's 4-5 percent out there of Sanders voters who haven't yet given up.

Frank Wilhoit said...

Weaver is this cycle's Mark Penn: the advisor whose toxicity is so far off the scale that all you can do is blink at it. Lewandowski (say what one will of him) is at least not a spokesthing. Manafort may eventually come down to this level. But so far, Weaver stands alone. Clinton certainly has no one to match him.

Nick said...

In many cases, pleasure from someone else's misery.

Charon04 said...

Allie:

" ... He knows this. He may be crabby, but he's nobody's fool. ... "

I do so hope you are right, but those look to me like assumed facts not in evidence.

petrilli said...

And so the Naderizing of Sanders begins. Such a productive way to reach out to his supporters. Question his campaign's motives, Warn Bernie and his "bro's" what horrible fate befalls them in our esteem if "They" don't come around "Our way" "Right now, goddammit!" That will bring those hippies around. O-O-O-H, If Sanders doesn't kiss her ass fast enough, people on blogs will call him names. I guess at least if she loses, her supporters have their excuses all set up for the next 15 years Like Gore's people did in 2000. I hope Sanders digs in all the way and squeezes every unrealistic lefty concession possible from the neoliberal quislings who run the DNC before Clinton gets the official nomination. After that, we'll all re-adjust to the new reality and so will Bernie. Sanders said, If Clinton wants his supporters she'll have to go out and earn them, and he's right. Clinton recently hardened her opposition to TPP and other trade policies BTW (sorry, no link). You think that would happen without a serious challenge from her left? Current buzz has her advisors salivating after Bush supporters and moderate Trump hating repubs. Who do you think she'll sell out in a heartbeat to get those conservatard votes if she could get away with it right now? In case you're wondering, it would be all the liberals on this blog and others who keep moaning and concern trolling about Bernie Sanders and how he might be going too far, and why doesn't he just get lost already. I could be wrong, but no more wrong than anyone else who hangs around here giving opinions. Here's an opinion: Give the guy a chance. Maybe he knows what he's doing. Thanks, I feel better now.

Steve M. said...

I'm talking about the candidate and the campaign manager working to persuade their own voters to vote for their party's candidate in the general election election and you're telling me I'm ordering "bros" (a word I never used) to switch loyalties immediately. Not the same thing.

In the future, please do me the courtesy of responding to what I've written, not what you think I've written.

Chai T. Ch'uan said...

The most important thing we've established 6 months out from November, even before we have an "official presumptive nominee", is there's clearly someone whose fault it will be if Hillary loses. Surely that takes the pressure off her campaign to deliver on their electability boasts!

Blackstone said...

For the Nader fans: look up Summess v Tice. We are not exactly sure who fired the shot, but both tortfeasors acted negligently at the same time, so both are equally guilty. So yes 15 years after your sanctimonious bullshit we hold still Nader Culpubable. An ignominious end to his career as an advocate for the little guy

petrilli said...

You have a point, Steve. I'm jumping the gun a bit. I'll just save the post for when you inevitably write those things and paste it back in then. And you will write them. Probably sooner rather than later if Sanders stays in and keeps riling the pearl clutchers.

petrilli said...

Thanks, Blackstone. You made my point for me. Sanders isn't Nader by a long shot, never-the-less, he is preemptively being "Naderized." You just can't wait to hang that turd on him, can you. Its just so easy to have an excuse for failure in the can and ready to go. Good for you.

Blackstone said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blackstone said...

You had a point? I make no excuses for Gore, but that doesn't absolve Nader of culpubaility. What's always been of interest to me is how Nader fans don't have the courage of their conventions and accept any responsibility for their part in the Bush debacle.

I've made no mention of sanders, so saying how my post proves your point is dubious and amusing. I'd have no problem voting for sanders if he were the nominee. Can you say the same about Hillary - who'se voting record is similar to sanders? Who was the 12th most liberal senator during her time in the senate. How does sanders 2 votes for regime change in Iraq during the 1990s make him less of a war monger than Hillary. As I recall sanders was willing to go into Iraq as part of a UN force. How does that differ from Hilary's conditional Iraq vote? I don't have a problem supporting either sanders or Hillary, over any of the GOP nominees. But I am not a cult of personality voter either. I vote my interests. I recognize elections have consequences and one George W. Bush regime was more than enough, do we really need to suffer a trump regime as well?.

Robert said...

If Nader made Gore pick Lieberman as his VP, Nader certainly did cost Gore the election.
If, OTOH, Gore picked Lieberman as his VP on his own (during an election when the talk was "there's no difference between Ds and Rs"), Gore deserved to lose the election for trolling the electorate.

Steve M. said...

The notion that the Lieberman pick cost Gore the election is based on 0% evidence. Just because you hate him now, particularly for things he said after the 2000 election (a hatred I share, by the way), doesn't mean he was the reason for the loss.

Look, Gore made mistakes. You can blame a lot of those mistakes for the loss. You can blame the regular-guy-ization of Bush by the media and the media's decision to portray Gore as a squirm-inducing freak. But if you lose a basketball game by one point, everyone who missed a shot deserves the blame. And Nader sure as hell missed a shot.

Ten Bears said...

You lost your argument, Blackstone, with the lower case "s" in Sanders, while all other names remain properly capitalized. Not unlike what the Retards do to "democrat".

Republican Lite.

Philo Vaihinger said...

Kids looking for free tuition will bolt to Stein or stay home.

Anti-Democrat "progressives" enamored of actual socialism will bolt or stay home.

Older white voters who liked Bernie's character better than Hill's, or hate free trade, or who are alienated by Hill's aggressive military globalism, or are pissed off at the establishment plutocracy, or are just really feeling left out by Washington will be tempted by Trump.

And remember that before the NY Times got to him Bernie was also running against immigration.

That's a factor in understanding his voters.

petrilli said...

Lieberman didn't blow 2000 all by himself, but he missed a few shots too. His debate with Cheney in particular. Gore as well, for that matter. Especially with that "Lazio" move he made toward Bush at the debate start. Embarrassing. But Nader. Yeah, Nader.

Steve M. said...

Nader cannot fail. He can only be failed.

petrilli said...

I can't argue with any of your points Philo. I just think (maybe foolishly) That it isn't going to be that bad with the sore losers. Not 2000 bad. Bernie is going to go as far as he can. Then he'll come around. Back the candidate. He said he would and I believe him. Hillary will be a kick-ass opponent and give Trump no quarter. Then we get a sane SCOTUS justice or two. And maybe even some progressive representation in the cabinet. Trade and labor hopefully.

Blackstone said...

If anyone is still reading this thread, much as I despise Lieberman, there is no doubt in my mind in S Florida Lieberman helped Gore. Those who say otherwise don't live here, didn't visit here in 2000 and don't know what they are talking about. If you were here in 2000, you would have seen the excitement in the Jewish community at the idea of the first Jew on a presidential ticket. There is no question in my mind he helped turnout in S Florida. And I hate Lieberman with a passion close to the passion I hate George the Lesser.

as for Sanders, I like him, I like his positions, I'd have no trouble voting for him if he were the nominee. I apologize for upsetting you, 10B, but if my poor typing skills is what you think loses an argument, I suggest you stop being so thin skinned and keep your eyes on the prize. If my willingness to vote for Sanders makes me Republican lite, I am dying to know what you think makes a progressive.

Odie Jackson said...

White liberal's sure can screw things up when they dont get their way.

Odie Jackson said...

Who reads Salon anyway.

Ten Bears said...

Typo my rosey red ass. A typo is once, you misspelled Sanders five times while all others remain properly capitalized. These are the games the Retards play.

There are worse than Republican Lite, there's Republicans smoking pot.