If it's a true revolution...then don't let perfect be the enemy of good

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

A really wise and kind mentor of mine once told me "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"...essentially, he meant that I shouldn't let my pursuit the perfect most desired outcome to undermine the big picture of what I was trying to achieve.

This rings so true to me when I consider the position of those who are in the Bernie-or-Bust camp. Bernie and his supporters have amassed significant power as a bloc of voters and a strong voice in the democratic party. Despite this, it's arguably inevitable that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination for the presidency this year.

Those who are thinking that they will never vote for Hillary Clinton, and will instead vote 3rd party, or for Trump, or for the Green Party, or the Libertarians, or write-in Bernie, or not vote at all are actually giving up the great political power they have amassed in the Democratic Party.

A President Hillary Rodham Clinton will have to be much more responsive to the agenda and the demands of the large number of Bernie supporters within the party than will a President Donald J. Trump. Clinton and her VP pick will want to (need to) be re-elected by a coalition that includes Bernie's current supporters. A democratic senate will need to be responsive to the demands and priorities of a democratic coalition that includes Bernie's current supporters...that democratic senate is less of a possibility if republicans are swept back into power along with a President Donald J. Trump.

My point is...if the nomination goes to Hillary Clinton (which it looks like it will), why give up this power that you've amassed by allowing Trump to be elected instead? Do you think Bernie will run again in 2020 when he's 80? Do you honestly think Clinton would do more damage to the country than Trump?

I do respect anyone's right to vote however they choose in November, but I'm not convinced that the Bernie or Bust mindset is a vote in anyone's best interest, because Bernie is not likely to win the nomination under any circumstances at this point...and a vote against Clinton in the general only serves to help Trump...and that is not a vote that will advance any aspect of Bernie Sanders' agenda in any conceivable way.

If your PERFECT candidate does not get elected this cycle, how does it benefit your agenda and that of your candidate if you refuse to vote for the only other viable candidate who at least gives you a GOOD chance of moving many of your priorities forward as compared to Trump?

Why give up this political power you have amassed? You CAN change the democratic party from within over time, and you CAN force a President Hillary Clinton to hear and respond to your voices (if she wants to be re-elected, if she wants a cooperative democratic congress), but you won't have that chance at all if we end out with President Trump.

I'm sure I'll get crappy responses from die-hards on both side of this argument, and I really don't care. I'm sure many of my fellow Clinton supporters will disagree with my characterization that the political revolution is real, despite my support of Clinton...and I don't care about that either. I'm just baffled by those who would squander what could become a true progressive revolution over a single candidate during a single election.

Political change is a long-game...and it can't be achieved if you completely forfeit to the other team whenever your favorite player strikes out.

[Merryland]

1. Good try.

[salinsky]

2. Prepare to be baffled ... nt

[djean111]

3. No, Hillary cannot be forced to the left - she has already said she won't do that, and

she said she is winning, so why would she change a thing.

[Skink]

4. Nice try

[potone]

5. That is a good principle if we agreed...

that Hillary is the "good." Some of us have yet to be persuaded of that. And no, I would never vote for Trump, but I do resent Hillary being shoved down our throats when what we need is radical change before everything goes completely to hell, including the livability of our planet. I think that this is a make-or-break election, and I am not given to dire prognostications.

[Silver_Witch]

6. Hillary doesn't need us.

Go over to the Hillary thread and they will tell you all about how petty and useless we are. Or how we aren't really a part of the Democratic party. Or that we are just republican plants.

I am wondering if the Democratic Party is now so selfish and non-caring if I am a member for sure. Then I remember I won't give up the fight to make this party what is has always stood for! The little guy/gal. The people will define the party.

And since Hillary doesn't want or need us - how are we hurting her?

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

8. You're really letting a few Hillary supporters on a website inform your feelings?

Well, I mean...I've had a number of Bernie supporters tell me I'm a "Shill" for Hillary, but I've yet to see a pay check for my support. I've had Bernie supporters tell me that I'm a corporate whore, even though I've only ever worked in the non-profit sector. I've had Bernie supporters tell me that I'm a Wall Street apologist, even though I have very little invested in my 403b plan (a retirement for non-profit sector employees). I've had Bernie supporters tell me I'm not a true progressive, not a liberal, that I'm a DINO, etc.

However, if Bernie won the nomination...legitimately...I would vote for him in a heartbeat. And I would vote for him because even though Clinton is my preferred candidate, I know that the damage of a Trump presidency far outweighs the butt-hurt I feel from being taunted by Bernie supporters who DO NOT speak for the candidate.

And to your question...I personally don't buy the "Hillary doesn't want or need" you. Personally, I think she needs Bernie supporters a whole hell of a lot. However, I imagine all the negative sh*t that's been said about her makes it a little hard to extend an honest olive branch at this point in the process...I think that's works the same way in both directions.

I think the democratic party is changing, becoming more liberal and becoming more open to the social programs Bernie advocates for, and while Bernie probably can't win the nomination this time...his supporters CAN shift the party and CAN influence Hillary Clinton, but can't do that if Trump gets elected.

So to answer those who are saying "Nice Try"...I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm just expressing that I don't at all understand the mindset that Trump is a more acceptable outcome than Clinton in terms of having a chance to influence the direction of a party and a president.

[rusty fender]

28. Excellent points!

Many of the Bernie or Bust people are now stuck on their purity tests: Hillary wasn't for (insert cause) in the past so they just can't bear to vote for for her because she wasn't with them 100% throughout her entire career, etc., etc.

These people need to grow up!

[Trajan]

33. I've grown up with the Clinton's

My income has barely moved ever since ...

I view then as slightly better than Republicans ...

Many of us feel it's time to dislodge the right wing Democrats from positions of power in the party ...

The Clintons helped set the table for the troubles that have befallen us ever since ...

We aren't going to accept 'GOP-Lite' anymore ...

It's time for the pendulum to swing back to the left ...

[ancianita]

7. I'd like to think that if more Hillers had reached out to get Hillary in touch with progressives,

her own perfect would not have been the enemy of the good, either.


Thank you for your post.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" was the motto of the 'No Marriage Equality, Just Civil

Unions' crowd so I have found the phrase to be overused as an excuse for bigotry and to be insufficient as a worldview. 'Don't let half a loaf be the enemy of the pragmatic crumbs! Give up, accept your second class nature!!!!'

I'll take a pass on that one.

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

12. I think that's unfair...

I think that's unfair to attempt to discredit my point by connecting it to anti-marriage equality, which is a position I never took. I reject that false equivalency outright and I refuse to let that position be associated with my name, for the record.

But your analogy is proving my point to a certain degree....If Bernie is a full loaf, then Trump is an empty bag...but on principle you'll accept the empty bag over a half loaf?

Let everyone starve if I don't get my full loaf?

[Fumesucker]

24. It's a position Hillary took for a long time until it became clear it would hurt her politically

And then all of a sudden marriage was no longer a sacred bond between a man and a woman.

I don't even believe in the concept of sacredness and I have more respect for it than that.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. My comment was about the use of that hack phrase by bigoted moderates, I'm sick of the

phrase and of the entitled attitudes that motivate the use of it. The phrase is connected to that sort of politics because people promoting anti equality positions used that phrase endlessly. They proclaim themselves to be the pragmatic and the wise and others to be foolish.

Your response has all the respect that the phrase itself conveys.

[Betty Karlson]

10. Bernie isn't perfect - but he's good.

Clinton is the lesser of two evils: still evil.

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

15. It's hard to give a serious response...

It's hard for me to engage in a discussion with anyone who uses hyperbole like "evil" to describe the likely democratic nominee...opinions about someone's record and positions are one thing, but calling someone evil is just a little too over the top for me.

[Betty Karlson]

40. IWR, TPP, TTIP, "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman", Syria, Libya, ...

Look, we can have a semantic discussion about what record constitutes something beyond the threshold of evil, and which doesn't just yet. But somehow, I think that discussion would be just another diversionary tactic from camp Weathervane:

"See, the lesser of two evils can be good!"

[BillZBubb]

11. Sorry, I don't see Hillary doing anything for progressives as president.

It is, in some ways, like Obama. He talked a good progressive game in his campaign, but once elected he surrounded himself with "New Democrats" and shut out progressives. They went so far as to mock and demean the left.

Hillary would be much worse since she also has the neocon element in her political makeup.

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

13. So let's go with Trump then?

Will Trump be better than Clinton? Will he be more progressive?

If Hillary is the nominee and people refuse to vote for her because Bernie is better, than that's a better outcome?

I just don't get it.

[GoneFishin]

32. Blame the people who create that dilemma not the people confronted with it. If you serve someone a

shit sandwich don't be surprised when they won't eat it.

[BillZBubb]

34. The voters will go with whoever they go with.

You stated voting for Hillary would be advancing progressive goals. I called bullshit and told you why.

I don't have to go with trump. I guarantee you I won't. I have other options.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. It's more a "don't let perfect be the enemy of not-quite-as-shitty" sort of deal.

Hillary supports far too many things I steadfastly oppose to cross the line into "acceptable' territory, regardless of her opponent. Moreover, I don't trust her not to nominate center-right corporatists to the SCOTUS, justices that may or may not lean left on social issues, but who will never permit a reversal of Citizen's United...thus dooming us to further progression towards oligarchy. If she's a better pick than Trump, it's simply not by enough.

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

16. I respectfully disagree...

A Clinton SCOTUS nominee will NOT:
overturn Roe vs. Wade
overturn the affordable care act
abolish gay marriage
etc.

A Trump SCOTUS nominee WILL:
overurn Roe vs. Wade
overturn the affordable care act
abolish gay marriage
and
definitely will keep citizens united in place
etc.

So tell me again how those aren't enough of a difference to you between Trump and Clinton?

If you think those issues don't have an economic impact, don't put the oligarchy in greater control over the system...then I'm at a loss.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. I'm not convinced a socially-liberal SCOTUS nominee will have much of a chance at confirmation.

I don't expect us to re-take the Senate (I consider Hillary to be downballot cancer...a complicated point that would take too much off-topic explanation here). A demonstrably liberal-on-social issues nominee won't be confirmed. At best, with Clinton, we might get a nominee who's just vague enough on these matters to squeak through...and be only marginally trustworthy.

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

21. so...a Donald Trump nominee is better?

I don't see why if it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton, why that means Trump is a better option than Clinton...

Would Romney have been a better option in 2012 than Obama because Obama didn't usher in a democratic senate and therefore couldn't get a liberal SCOTUS nominee through?

I've very confused by the absolutist logic here.

So, 3 more Justice Scalias is better than a chance of 3 more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs or 3 more Sonya Sotomayors? Because we won't know if there will be a Democratic congress until the evening of the presidential election!

Let's risk it with Trump because Clinton's nominees possibly won't be as progressive as we'd like and might not have a Democratic senate anyway?

I'm not trying to be rude, but I just literally don't see how that mindset serves ANYTHING Bernie stands for...and a President Trump will be able to nominate as many as 3 Scalias for lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS...but, you know..F the world if Bernie loses??!!

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. That doesn't follow, no.

I'm simply pointing out that the SCOTUS argument isn't a particularly strong one, not that it's an invalid one.

Hillary might be able to get a slightly better nominee confirmed. The probable slight improvement in SCOTUS nominees doesn't outweigh, for me, the long-term harm to progressive causes a Hillary presidency would likely cause. Trump would be a truly nasty short-term gut-punch to the nation...with potential longer-term ramifications.

Hillary's presidency would, in my view, be a truly poisonous one for longer-term progressive goals...with one of the more toxic elements being a reinforcement of the Third Way takeover of what was once a pro-working-class party. And while I certainly don't expect a change in Congressional control with Hillary, even if that did happen, I have very little doubt we'd get hammered in the next mid-term. If Trump gets elected, it'll be the GOP that gets their ass handed to them in 2018.

Is the long-term outlook worth two years of Trump + GOP congressional control? Well...that's the big question for BoB folk, isn't it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. I'm not a perfectionist. But, I'm wary of "not as bad" or "lesser of two evils" pleas.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Thomas Paine

[Dem2]

19. Well said

Politics is (or should be) a long game.

[restorefreedom]

20. perfect is not the enemy of good

corrupt hillary and her corrupt minions at dnc are the enemy of good

they fully own the trump landslide that will visit them this november

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

23. So you're officially rooting for Trump then?

So, if Bernie loses the nomination you're officially rooting for Trump then?

Because Hillary is worse than Trump?

Am I understanding you correctly?

I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just trying to understand what you mean by your response...because if Hillary wins the nomination, it will be effectively be a choice between Hillary and Trump.

[restorefreedom]

26. i don't know what your ballots look like,

but mine have a number of options, including a write in slot.

and the twisted logic of "voting for someone else or doing a write in is a vote for trump" ain't gonna cut it.

a vote for for someone is a vote FOR someone, period. it works out how it works out.

and fwiw, since trump is to the left of hillary on many important issues, many voters, including many indies, will see him as the better option.

and those things combined is why she will lose.

[dana_b]

22. What power have we amassed? Seriously? They have

continually disparaged us, called us names, told us we aren't wanted/needed, laughed at, and that's just the start.

The only way that we have power is with someone who takes us seriously and truly has a progressive agenda. Bernie is even sponsoring a convention in Chicago for progressives to get together and get this revolution going. THAT'S a leader, that's someone who wants us to have power, that's someone who will fight for US! And he is the ONLY one that I will fight for.

[felix_numinous]

29. This would work if HRC supported us

but she has made it clear from the get go we are not needed on the left, nevermind having someone who lies being touted out like that is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. Any potential bridges got burned down before they ever got started.

[winter is coming]

30. Your "wise and kind mentor" was full of shit.

I've never seen "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" used when the things being discussed were "perfect" and "good". I've only ever seen that phrase used when someone was trying to manipulate me into accepting something that I--and they--knew was substandard, if not outright hideous.

[PowerToThePeople]

31. Bernie or Bust! n/t

[Trajan]

35. You're a pretty nice person

Rare thing in your circles ...

Hence, I won't ignore you ...

But, with all that realist talk, you forgot that people WANT to dream of a better life for themselves ... They want to feel that life will be BETTER for their children ...

The Clinton campaign offers a hopeless vision of the future, where good things cannot happen for regular citizens, because that is 'too hard!' ... That those corporate fat cats who feed the Clinton money trough will get what they want, and WE, the regular workers who have fought hard FOR the Democratic Party over the years, will get Doodley Squat ... AGAIN!

Yes ... Your words are soothing, in a weird way ... But the 'reality' is this - There is no hope for American families in a Clinton administration, unless you run a fucking private prison or a Fracking Corporation ...

Here's your fucking crumbs, now SHUT UP!

Yeah ... Just like that ... That is intolerable ....

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

36. All I know is...

I will try my hardest to respect that point of view, despite completely disagreeing with it...

All I know is that I don't want my two kids living in a world where Trump succeeds Obama...the damage that will do to their lives is unimaginable to me...

So, I will continue to make my case that if Hillary is the nominee she should be elected over Trump. All of you may not agree...but as long as my kids rely on me to fight and vote for them, I'll fight to keep Trump out of the White House, and that most likely means fighting hard to elect Hillary in this particular election.

That said, I stand by my opinion that Sanders' supporters have a place in the Democratic Party and the potential to fight for progressive values under Clinton, even if many of you refuse to see that potential.

[pampango]

37. FDR: Perfectionism, no less than isolationism or imperialism or power politics, may obstruct the

paths to international peace. Let us not forget that the retreat to isolationism a quarter of a century ago was started not by a direct attack against international cooperation but against the alleged imperfections of the peace.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16595

[Chan790]

38. I don't think of Hillary as "good" though.

I'm perfectly willing to let "perfect" be the enemy of "less bad."

Hillary is less bad than Trump. Whoopie!!

[99Forever]

39. Some of us have already waited way too fucking long.

We're on to the scam.

NO FUCKING SALE.