2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Is Sanders 2016 Becoming Nader 2000?"
By BILL SCHER May 16, 2016
"Bernie Sanders, for all his talk of revolution, never wanted to be Ralph Nader. He has a long history of keeping the Democratic Party at arms length, but he also has a long history of rejecting spoiler bids. Since 1992, he has always endorsed the Democratic presidential nominee, snubbing Naders four left-wing third-party campaigns. He became a Democrat to run for president instead of keeping his (I) and following in Naders footsteps. He has pledged to support Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination and has ripped Donald Trump at every opportunity.
But even if Sanders isnt deliberately trying to replicate the electoral trauma inflicted by Nader in 2000when he probably cost Al Gore the presidencyBernies lingering presence in the Democratic primary threatens to produce a similar result in November: delegitimizing the eventual Democratic nominee in the eyes of the left and sending many critics, if not to Trump, then to the Green Partys Jill Stein or the Libertarian Partys Gary Johnson.
...One way would be to follow the lead of Jesse Jackson in 1988, who remained in the race for the entire primary. But when he came to the Democratic convention with 38 percent of the pledged delegates, he went to great lengths to keep his team focused on changing the party over the long haul rather than disrupting the election (though Michael Dukakis still lost). Im going to ask you to do a hard thing, Jackson said to his delegates, Put your focus on why we're here. If you're following my lead, then reflect my spirit, attitude and discipline. We don't have the time to fill up the media airwaves with pollution.
...Jackson didnt quit before it was officially over for the same reason Sanders wont: more delegates means more influence at the convention. But thats where Sanders faces a paradox. The potential of using his delegates to make her convention disorderlyforcing floor fights over platform language, nominating himself on the floor, withholding his endorsementis what gives him leverage. But to unleash convention chaos risks a repeat of 1968, when efforts by Eugene McCarthys delegates to wrest the nomination from Hubert Humphrey and include an anti-Vietnam War plank to the platform failed on the convention floor, prompting a livid McCarthy to leave the convention without endorsing the ticket. He gave an extremely reluctant endorsement in the campaigns final days, and his unwillingness to rally his supporters possibly tipped five states to the Republican winner Richard Nixon."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/is-sanders-2016-becoming-nader-2000-213893#ixzz48vPdU6J5
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)The Hillary folks don't get it, it seems, that even if Bernie had never run, many of us would not be supporting Hillary anyway.
It'll come to them. Eventually.
horrific polling numbers (essentially tied with the most unpopular major party nominee in polling history, she's the second most unpopular, not trusted, polls much worse than Sanders does versus Trump, polls much worse with independents, etc), they'll be in full panic mode in a few months. Doubly if anything (a major scandal, the FBI investigation) blows up between now and the election, which is more likely than not. It will be everyone's fault but theirs that they chose such a horrible nominee.
bloom
(11,635 posts)I didn't see it -so I posted it.
It relevant to what is going on- and more worth talking about than most of what is posted in the primary forum right now.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Nothing in there that has not been flung, like random and myriad boogeyman parts, at Bernie's supporters.
Boiled down - it says stop supporting Bernie, better support Hillary, ooga-booga-scary shit might happen!
I wish there was a separate group for these, so I could trash it.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)a major force for progressive change? Since Nader was instrumental in many of the consumer protection and environmental laws (as well as the EPA and OSHA, among countless other things), I hope he's the new Nader. By the way, thanks for being the thousandth person to post this. Now, as far as the left that is now supporting Clinton, I seriously doubt a good number of them will support Clinton, since she stands for everything they oppose and is certain to cement and inequitable and corrupt system that is leading us to ecological collapse. You can try to earn their vote by treating them with respect and giving them reasons to vote for her, as opposed to against Trump, but that seems beneath you. You all seem very happy with the left doing nothing and just falling in line. Sorry that those days are gone, but they are.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)It's a myth that Nader cost Gore the election.
Gore ran a bad campaign and owns it entirely.
If Hillary loses, she too will own that.loss, as will the DNC who annointed such a weak candidate.
http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/
bloom
(11,635 posts)But also - if you voted for Nader - then you need to own that vote. If Bush won partly because of you - then there you go. The same with Trump. IF you are part of the campaign that puts Trump in the Whitehouse - don't blame Hillary.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)the election. Gore cost Gore the election because he didn't call for a state wide recount. Because when ALL the ballots were recounted, no matter which way they did it, chads or no chads. . . Gore got the most votes. Nader was not a factor.
This is just a convenient LIE used by people who need to make excuses and rationalizations.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)People voted for Kerry because he was the most electable.
However he was for the Iraq war and insufficiently rejected republican lite ideas to make a good contrast with Bush.
GOP raised questions about whether he was truthful and managed to whack him.