HISTORY DEPT: Why Bernie’s Bros Might Go for Trump

[ProgressiveEconomist]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/why-bernies-bros-might-go-for-trump-213915
“Anti-establishment liberals abandoned their party in 1968, and again in 1980. Why not 2016?

By JOSH ZEITZ May 25, 2016

“Could a chunk of Bernie Sanders’ anti-establishment base really vote for GOP outsider Donald Trump in November? Could it be enough to swing the election in Trump’s favor? … In 1968 and 1980, insurgent liberal challengers—Eugene McCarthy and Edward Kennedy—captured a popular wave of anti-establishment sentiment but failed to win their party’s nomination. In November, many of their supporters veered sharply to the right, voting for candidates who didn’t necessarily share their political views but who served as a convenient outlet for the expression of their broader frustrations. In both cases, this block of Democratic defectors helped deliver the election to the Republican Party. …

Exit polls showed that roughly 18 percent of McCarthy’s primary voters ended up supporting Wallace. It was enough to swing the election—and it might have been higher, still, had organized labor not intervened. …

On election day, some 27 percent of Edward Kennedy’s primary supporters cast their votes for Reagan. …

what if 20 percent of Sanders voters in key states defect to Trump, as they did in previous years? Could it be enough to swing an election?”

[Fuddnik]

1. If you gave them a better alternative than Clinton, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

4. "Antiesteblishment" candidates are almost destined

to lose Party primaries. Many of their supporters never would vote for any likely "establishment" primary victor in any case. Trouble is, IMO, these interlopers may cause enough fuss to take some longtime Party voters with them over to the other side in the GE. History suggests 20 percent of Sanders voters will cast ballots for Don Donald in November.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Seventeen percent of Clinton supporters voted for McCain in 08.

We will just have to live with it.

[TheBlackAdder]

7. If I recall correctly, there was a racial component with some of those defectors.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. The bottom line is Obama won despite those traitors. Their race is of no moment to me.

Their treachery is. Our party is best to rid of that vermin.


17%, 20% are manageable numbers. There are always voters who say they are a member of one party and vote for the other.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

15. "17%, 20% are manageable numbers"

I hope you are correct.

And I hope Hillary's campaign people are aware of these historical estimates of the extra hurdles the "Bernie or Bust"idiots may put in her way.

Else Trump may walk in the fotsteps of Nixon and Reagan, with just enough help from "anti-Establishment" types.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. 20% of 40% = 8%

If HRC win 92% of the Democratic vote she will be fine. That's what PBO won in his successful 012 campaign:

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

[AgingAmerican]

2. Something that doesn't exist is gonna go for Trump?

How prophetic

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. What "doesn't exist"?

Sanders voters?

[JackRiddler]

26. Exactly what I was going to say.

A category invented for the Clinton campaign's attack propaganda, the "Bernie Bro," is sufficiently non-existent to suit any purpose! We will need something to blame for a potential Clinton loss, so why not this bogeyman? Once again, a corrupt, neoliberal party establishment can deflect all responsibility for its own failures on to a fictionalized left!

[wendylaroux]

54. is a Berniebro a male supporter? If so,what would a female supporter be?

who came up with the bro part to start with? offensive.

[Jester Messiah]

58. Bernie Bras, obviously!

[wendylaroux]

66. oh good,Bernie bras,I was afraid I was a Bernieho

[JackRiddler]

61. Who came up with the bro part?

Brock, or some junior Brock. Offensive, yes. And a female supporter is supposed to be non-existent. It's all violent white men utopians who irrationally hate HRC because she's qualified and female, don't you know?

[bunnies]

63. Havent you heard?

All Bernie supporters are male. My penis delivery still hasnt arrived though. Damn USPS.

[TheBlackAdder]

6. Most are not going for Trump. HRC said 40% of her supporters would not vote for Obama and most did.

.


While some might have bitterness or sour grapes, there will be a subset of GOPers doing the same thing on thier side.


.

[MineralMan]

8. Some will, no doubt, but most of those will be

people who never considered themselves Democrats in the first place. Those people may decide to burn down the village, rather than trying to save it. I think they will make up a very small percentage of voters. Another group of voters, and a much larger one, will vote for Hillary, even if their party registration says Republican.

Many Republicans will refuse to cast their vote for Trump, and will switch to vote for Clinton. The same is true of many people who call themselves independent. They will vote for the candidate most likely to avoid flushing the country down the toilet.

People vote for their own reasons, and not always in line with the political party on their registration. That is why Hillary Clinton will move into the White House next January.

[basselope]

11. They don't believe Hillary can "save it".

Here's what they see...

The village is already burning.

Hillary isn't going to put out the fire... she'll just keep adding logs one at a time.

Trump MAY more gasoline on it.

I won't vote for Trump, but I won't vote for Hillary either, b/c either way we are on fire.

[MineralMan]

13. OK. That's one vote.

Everyone has the right to vote as they choose. You've announced what you will do, or are saying that, anyhow.

That's one vote. Good luck.

[basselope]

19. It's MANY MANY more than one.

I have dealt with 100's of people now volunteering. I can safely say that 90% of them will not vote for Hillary.

Does that represent ALL Sanders voters.

No.

However, his most ardent supporters are supporting him for a reason.

Failure of people to understand that reason is why we are likely going to have to learn to live with President Trump for 4 years.

[realmirage]

17. When Trump stacks the supreme court with conservatives for 30 years and tuition help goes bye bye

and social security, green technology, environmentalism, health care, gay marriage, pro-choice all go bye bye too, and big corporations and the 1 percent have 80 percent of all the nation's wealth, we shall see if you still think Hillary and Trump are equally bad choices.

[basselope]

20. None of which is likely happen.

Dear god.. the drama people invent.

Trump cannot do ANY of the things you mentioned unless other things happen. (ie, Liberal members of the court die or retire while he is in office).

He can't just "stack the court", b/c there are enough democrats in the Senate to block it.

And, as I stated earlier in another thread, I have no faith in Clinton to put liberals on the court anyway.

[realmirage]

23. There is one opening currently and several others are very old.

Republicans control the Senate. The Democrats can't block anything.

[basselope]

36. Now.. follow the logic.

The current opening was from the MOST CONSERVATIVE member. So if you replace him with a conservative.. NOTHING has changed.

The one you are most worried about is Ginsberg and she ain't going anywhere.

The democrats have enough votes to filibuster "STACKING THE COURT", which is all Donald would be capable of doing in the 4 years he would be in office.

[realmirage]

44. Ginsberg, age 83

Stephen Bryer - 77 years old
Anthony Kennedy - 79 years old
And one current vacancy previously held by a conservative.

Not sure how you know that these people will outlive a Trump presidency, but the average lifespan says otherwise.

A historic opportunity to swing the court left.

Swing it further right and I have no reason not to believe Republicans won't turn back the clock on all the things they've been promising to. Reagan sure did a lot of damage that we are still suffering from. Maybe you feel we haven't suffered enough, and another GOP era is a good idea?

[basselope]

49. Averages are very different for those in their positions.

Who receive top notch health care, etc..

Why do you think people in DC have a higher life expectancy for Whites than other states?

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-white

Little fun things you can find with facts.

Odds are small there will be a vacancy in the next 4 years.

[realmirage]

51. You are assuming Trump will only last 4 years

You are also assuming you know when judges will die. Scalia, by your reasoning, is still alive.

"Facts" that come from your personal crystal ball don't fall under the definition of actual facts.

[basselope]

72. Scalia had huge risk factors.

And yes, Trump would only last 4 years because a recession is coming between 2016 and 2021.

[realmirage]

81. More crystal ball predictions

I can't have a serious discussion with someone who doesn't deal in facts and reality. Bye!

[AZ Progressive]

9. If Hillary supporters keep on calling Bernie Supporters "Bernie Bros"...

I get to call Hillary Supporters "foolish ass kissers of the 1%"

[hobbit709]

10. Useful idiots is the term.

[jzodda]

14. What progressive would vote Trump?

What kind of moronic ass would support a left leaning candidate and then shift to a fucking lunatic republican with no morals but who has put out a list of wackos for the supreme court?

I say fuck em

[realmirage]

18. Turning the country over to a racist republican who will turn back the clock on all the progress

we've made, no true progressive would stay home and let this happen.

[basselope]

21. You fail to understand the reasoning.

I won't vote for Trump, but I know MANY Bernie supporters who are actively volunteering for his campaign who have told me they will vote Trump over Clinton. I understand their reasoning and logic. I can't bring myself to vote for him personally, but IF someone held a gun to my head and told me Clinton and Trump were the only two choices on the ballot.. I would probably go that way as well and I am about as true a progressive as you are going to find.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. HRC had the 11th-most-liberal voting record

as a senator, according to two political scientists. Why on earth would you prefer mobbed-up racist tax cheat and swindler Donald Trump to her? I just don't understand Hillary-hate derangement disorder. Are you that susceptible to decades of right-wing propaganda against the Clintons?

[realmirage]

25. Hard to understand the minds that are so easily persuaded to switch parties.

[pengu]

31. but that record is a joke because dems have been supporting shit like iraq

The votes she's wrong about are some of the worst judgement in American history.

[JackRiddler]

32. The way of economists is to let some lame ratings system do the thinking.

In which reality is abandoned for convenience of measurement, even if it is facade and nothing important is being measured. Rather than bother to define terms like "liberal" or figure out right and wrong, some self-inflated think-tank duo aggregated and weighted a set of congressional votes they decided would measure "liberal," and gave us a number. Hooray! We can pretend political ideology is no different than batting average. She ranks 11th in the league! And you seriously repeat that bullshit as if it could ever mean anything. The positivism, it burns!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

46. You prefer emotional propaganda

to all rational attempts at measurement?

George Bush had some advisers who apparently felt that way. I remember reading a New York Times Magazine article about how Dubya was being advised to "change reality" rather than bow to it.

[JackRiddler]

60. You prefer absurd straw-man responses

to acknowledging the evident defects of irrational constructs that purport to be measurement but are divorced from reality?

Adolf Hitler had some advisers who (fill in the blank in the spirit of your silly comment, tit for tat).

[ProgressiveEconomist]

65. Your answer is, "Yes"?

[JackRiddler]

71. Yes, your approach is without value or sense.

[basselope]

33. It's a nonsense statement.

The concept of her being the 11th most liberal (which ONLY applies to the Senate) is mythological talking point because it assigns meanings to the few votes that actually come up and weighs them all equally. Her voting against the GOP on some nonsense issue is given equal weight to her vote for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

NONE of this addresses the deep systemic problem that legislation that MATTERS rarely makes it to the floor b/c of the money influences in politics and how it controls what legislation gets attention and what legislation doesn't.

Again, I AM NOT VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP. However, I know many Bernie supporters, STRONG BERNIE supporters who are volunteering for his campaign who are planning to do so.

First, you have to start with the understanding that Hillary will do absolutely NOTHING to address the systemic problems facing this country. Nothing in her platform or her record shows she has any real interest in changing the way things are done or even moving in that direction. She barely even pays lip service to the real problems and it goes way beyond Citizens United.

Second, you have to understand that the next president will likely face a recession to some degree. The situation we are in right now is very similar to what bush inherited in 1988 and by the early 90's we were in a recession. The economy is teetering and there isn't enough room for the fed to keep it afloat. We have a significant revenue problem. Clinton's tax plan doesn't even scratch the surface of what needs to happen and that is assuming she gets ALL OF IT. So, even if Clinton wins in November, which is highly doubtful since she has no viable path, she will be gone in 4 years b/c she will be blamed for the recession.

Put 1 and 2 together and you can figure out why some people would vote for Trump over Clinton if only to keep Clinton out.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

38. More "Hillary hatred derangement disorder"?

[basselope]

42. No, just facts.

[JackRiddler]

74. Do you believe for a minute this guy is an academic?

Not with the level of rhetoric employed. Embarrassing.

[basselope]

77. Sadly.. I do.

There are doctors.. MEDICAL DOCTORS out there who still don't believe smoking causes cancer.

Atmospheric scientists who still don't believe in climate change.

This is why I always liken political parties to religion.

People will defend it w/o thought or critical analysis.

[JackRiddler]

78. Yeah, I know.

Too well!

[JackRiddler]

41. Exactly right on the ludicrous ratings systems.

You know what's even worse than uninformed people?

The know-nothing, self-identified as "liberal," educated middlebrow who think the canon of human wisdom now begins and ends with 538, Politifact and Snopes.

[realmirage]

24. True progressive who would vote Trump

[basselope]

45. True progressive who would vote for Hillary

[realmirage]

47. Think about it, you are advocating for a Republican

I think that says all anyone needs to know.

[basselope]

50. No, I am not voting for Trump.

I am ADVOCATING for Bernie Sanders and why he should be the candidate.

Clinton can't win the general election.

I understand why many Bernie Supporters won't vote for her and why some of them would vote AGAINST her.

[realmirage]

53. Anyone who does not vote Democrat is helping Trump. That is reality.

You can rationalize it in any way you want, but you can't change reality.

[basselope]

75. No, it's not.

Voting for Trump is helping Trump.

I will not be voting for Trump.

[realmirage]

80. Unfortunately it is

End of story

[anigbrowl]

37. There isn't any reasoning

These people are fundamentally stupid, and my experience is that they're so mired in Marxist ideology that they think a Trump presidency would wake Americans up to how bad capitalism is and bring about the long-awaited socialist replacement. This notion of 'sharpening the contradictions' of capitalism by supporting its worst exemplars is not uncommon among the radical left, and seems to appeal particularly to people who are looking for an excuse to break out the pitchforks, although they're likely as ignorant of agricultural labor as they are of history.

Just so there's no ambiguity, if you think that voting for Trump in the GE is going to bring about a better future than voting for Clinton then you're a fucking moron.

[basselope]

40. I'm not voting for Trump.

However, I don't see how voting for Clinton in the upcoming election will bring about a better future than voting for Trump.

They aren't the same, but neither of them will address any of the real problems we have.. so the country will continue on its bad course.

[anigbrowl]

52. Only because someone isn't holding a gun to your head:

"I can't bring myself to vote for him personally, but IF someone held a gun to my head and told me Clinton and Trump were the only two choices on the ballot.. I would probably go that way as well [...]"

Do what you want. Maybe in 4 years time someone will be holding a gun to your head to ensure you vote for Trump's second term, and you'll feel like your vote really matters again.

[basselope]

73. Oh please....

I've been hearing this BS forever.

[anigbrowl]

84. Well you said it, not me. nt

[jzodda]

43. Thanks

I was confused on their reasoning but you cleared that up.

[Starry Messenger]

70. People who vote for Trump are assholes.

[Starry Messenger]

83. Then you're on the side of the right and won't be here much longer.

Won't be missed.

[pampango]

34. Well if some voted for George Wallace over Hubert Humphrey, I guess anything is possible.

That is hard to imagine. Bernie is as far from a racist, nativist as you can get but so was Hubert Humphrey. If Trump is only as bad as Nixon we will count ourselves as lucky.

[jzodda]

48. We live in some strange times

n/t

[VulgarPoet]

27. This is foolishness. eom

[ProgressiveEconomist]

30. "Those who don't remember history ...."

[McCamy Taylor]

28. Must balance this with all the GOP Women who will cross over for Clinton.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

57. I really hope you're right

But Republicans seem to be uniting behind their sorry candidate, just as they've done in the past.

Remember, Sarah Palin won the white vote for Vice-President.

[book_worm]

29. While there were "Reagan Democrats" in 1980 I think John Anderson hurt Carter more

he almost certainly cost Carter New York, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and a few other states.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

35. Read the link in the OP

Apparently polling says Anderson drew pretty equally from Carter and Reagan.

I remember reading that Kennedy did not close down his campaign offices even months after the convention was over! I fear Bernie and some of his supporters feel that same kind of delusional entitlement, party and downticket be damned.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

39. Translation: When Hillary loses, blame Bernie supporters

If that's not your point, you're just trolling. You people have been pushing this meme for months. If Hillary can't beat Trump, it's because she's a horrible candidate. How can someone lose to Trump?! You should have been concerned about her electability when you voted for her.

If you believe otherwise, you're trolling again.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

55. Exit polling in November will

provide a basis for comparing the damage Bernie did to Hillary with the damage McCarthy did to Humphrey and the damage Kennedy did to Carter.

Though "antiestablishment" candidates gave us Nixon and Reagan, hopefully this time the sheer clownishness, abject ignorance, and utter corruption of Trump will prevent a "threepeat" this year.

[JackRiddler]

79. The establishment gave you Nixon and Reagan. Pathetic.

The establishment has given you Clinton or Trump.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

85. Operative word being "will."

I'll check back with in November to see if it actually did or, in fact, didn't.

[Jester Messiah]

59. They were gonna do that anyway.

It can't possibly be chalked up to anything in her mountain of personal and professional negatives. Nope. All our fault.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

62. After a primary election,

a political party is expected to unite and vote for their nominee.

At least, that was the expectation before Bernie Sanders claimed the process is "rigged" and primaries should be "open" to anyone who may be up to anything but promoting party unity and success all the way up and down the ticket.

IMO sore losers of a primary should not try to avoid being called sore losers if they go over to the other side in the general election.

[Jester Messiah]

64. That's a very interesting opinion, thanks for sharing it. n/t

[tom-servo]

56. I think this could easily happen in this election...

...There are a lot Bernie Sanders supporters who are loyal democrats and they wouldn't do this, but Bernie Sanders appeals to a much broader range of voters. That's what makes him a better candidate from a practical point of view.

[Todays_Illusion]

67. Just remember, BernieBros created by libertarian Atlantic, not the Sanders Campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/08/are-the-berniebros-a-problem-of-politics-or-one-of-internet-culture/

So any operation using that name is not from the Bernie Sanders campaign.
It is from an organization created to harm the Sanders team.

[Eric J in MN]

68. It's up to Hillary Clinton.

If Clinton chooses Elizabeth Warren for VP, then the ticket will have an anti-establishment element.

If Clinton chooses a centrist VP, then it will be more difficult for Clinton to get anti-establishment voters.

[Todays_Illusion]

69. Our corporate conservative candidate Clinton receives support form fear mongering conservatives.

"The use of Bernie Bros will not be by anyone representing or supporting the Sanders campaign.

[Blue_Tires]

82. Damn... thank god I wasn't alive in '68...

Dems are so anti-status quo they go running to George Fucking Wallace? Those aren't Dems I'd want to know...