Unsolicited advice to Clinton from a Sanders voter who anticipates voting for Clinton in the general

[Attorney in Texas]

I prefer Sanders by a large margin over Clinton because I am a progressive liberal whose values are to the left of Clinton's.

Yet I prefer Clinton over all of the Republicans by an even larger margin.

I consider Sanders the underdog and Clinton the favorite in the primary so I anticipate that I will probably be financially supporting, campaigning for, and voting for Clinton a year from now.

With that said, Clinton and many of her supporters here are missing a great opportunity in this primary.

Many Clinton supporters are pushing the themes that (1) Clinton has an insurmountable lead and the primary is already effectively over, (2) Sanders cannot win because he has chosen to own the socialist label rather than run from it, (3) O'Malley's campaign platform and stump speeches are not always consistent with his past record and actions, etc.

Look at the first argument -- either you believe that Clinton has an insurmountable lead or you don't believe that. If you believe it, then you ought to be focused on the general election and not the primary. If you don't believe it, then you would better serve your preferred candidate's campaign by pushing an argument you really believe. If you truly believe Clinton has already won, then attacking Sanders and O'Malley has a bullying sore-winner tone; what sports team has a press conference after winning a game and berates the team they just beat? No one does that. You know a political candidate has won when he or she starts talking about what a worthy opponent the other side was and now is the time for party unity. The dominant argument from Clinton supporters is the opposite of this worthy-opponent-time-for-unity approach. If you have won the fight, then stop fighting.

Here is why -- even if you all believe in your hearts Clinton has already won -- Clinton supporters should not wish for a premature end to the primary. If the media can report on a vibrant primary campaign, they will. If the media cannot report on a vibrant primary campaign, they will either devote 95% of their interest in the Republican campaign and ignore Clinton or they will report on Republican generated faux-scandals focused on Clinton. Both options are deadly to Clinton's general election prospects. Moreover, if Rubio or some other non-Bush candidate wins the Republican nomination, you can bet a major campaign attack against Clinton will be that she was chosen through the "coronation of the Clinton dynasty candidate." That argument is nonsense, but you know it's coming and you know it will have some greater or lesser impact. If the primary is "over" three months before the first vote is cast, then the coronation argument is a strong one. If the primary contest is hard fought (maybe Sanders and O'Malley win a few states), then the coronation argument is weak. Ask yourself -- why are you promoting the Republicans' coronation argument by prematurely declaring victory?

Look at the second two arguments which contend that Clinton should win because of weaknesses in her opponents. If you believe Clinton is a strong candidate, then you should want her to win because of her strengths and you don't want her to win because of her opponents' weaknesses. If Clinton has the strength to beat her Republican rival, then she should be using the primary campaign to refine her arguments and to exercise her campaign muscles. When a top ranked sports team has an unranked underdog on the schedule, there is no need for smack talk denigrating the outmatched opponent.

Here is why -- even if you all truly believe Sanders and O'Malley are weak opponents -- you should nevertheless focus on Clinton's campaign issues and not your perception of the opposing candidates' flaws. Clinton will be called a socialist in the general election. Clinton will be attacked as "too liberal" in the general election. You will hear Republicans say "Clinton is even more liberal on this issue than socialist Bernie Sanders." Unless you truly believe Clinton cannot win without changing her core beliefs to pander to the progressive Warren-Sanders wing of the Democratic party, then Clinton should be laying the groundwork to run a general election campaign where she distinguishes herself from Sanders and O'Malley (and Obama). Instead of running a campaign that argues "vote Clinton because Sanders is a socialist" or "vote Clinton because O'Malley is really a DLC member who's only pretending to be more liberal than Clinton," the campaign should be "vote Clinton because her plan on this issue is more practical than her Democratic opponents' plans and more sane than the nonsense the Republicans are offering." Every time Clinton or her supporters offer a non-substantive attack on her primary opponents, she wastes an opportunity to distinguish herself from her primary opponents. In the general election, Clinton will wish she had better used these opportunities.

In summary, I prefer Sanders over Clinton, and I will do everything I can to promote his chances in the primary. I hope Sanders wins, but I think Clinton is more likely to be my candidate in the general election so I don't want to see her campaign run in a manner that serves her poorly in the general election if she wins (as I expect she will).

I am concerned that Clinton supporters are doing a very poor job of supporting my probable general election candidate. Please do a better job.

[JaneyVee]

1. Hillary supporters overwhelmingly support...

Bernie if he's the nominee.

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=792249

[Scootaloo]

5. Even the ones who link to antisemtic hate sites like Stormfront to smear him?

[randys1]

7. Anyone who did that has to go...i didnt see that

Stormfront? wow. bad

[pinebox]

14. It happened

[randys1]

15. I believe you...there are extreme folks on both sides, no doubt.

Hell, I dont even think WSJ is credible enough to be used here, let alone that vile site.

[Sheepshank]

18. Bernie is right where he is in part because of his supporters

He can't gain traction, and he and his supporters had been given unsolicited advice over and over.

And yet you persist in activities that are counter productive to Bernie's candidacy...why is that?

[Scootaloo]

19. We're not the ones using Stormfront as a source.

[Sheepshank]

20. One person used it once.

You know that one person to be a dedicated Dem. Yet you persist in crucifying over and over. Like a dog gnawing as a bone. As if anyone else is biting.

You as well as everyone else knows, that one post had one narrow message and that the person is not a Bagger and is not anti Semitic. No more anti Semitic than the person who posted an article on DU, luckily wasn't labelled antiemetic, but as soon as that same article was posted on another web site, you and your buddies trotted out the anti semetic meme.

It is short sighted, and a false argument to use that false equivalency over and over without true merit. You know it and so does everyone else who reads your post. You come across as grasping at straws to fill the void being left by that sinking ship called the Bernie candidacy.

[Scootaloo]

22. Vastly better people have been banned for far less.

And she joins the ranks of people who have insisted Sanders is a rapist. Who have insisted that Sanders protects pedophiles. That sanders is a gun nut. That sanders is a segregationist. That sanders is responsible for slavery in Virginia. That sanders is a racist Jew. That Sanders is bought and paid for by Israel - and that he's a dual citizen of that country, too. That all he cares about is money. That he's a sexist. That he's a warmonger (?) and an untrustable pacifist (!?)

if you want to talk about a candidate's supporters, you might want to look in the mirror.

[Sheepshank]

23. I'm hoping you include yourself in that statement...because I did. Nt

[Scootaloo]

24. I've never called Clinton any of those things.

Nor do I need to go scampering to racist rags to make a case against her.

[tblue37]

2. K&R. nt

[drray23]

3. thank you for this pragmatic post

This is my thinking as well. I was leaning Bernie but I will vote for either candidate. I like Bernie for his strong domestic agenda. I contrast that with Hillary's strength in foreign policy.
Both our candidates ar light years better than any republican so ultimately whomever wins the nomination will have my support.

[Bernblu]

29. Why do you think Hillary is good on FP?

Yes, she talks a good game and is knowledgeable about all the players. But her judgment and instincts are poor. She voted for the Iraq war which has led to the destruction of Iraq and Syria and the creation of ISIS. She supported policies in Libya which has led to its becoming a haven for ISIS and other terrorist groups. Whereas, Bernie predicted in 2003 what would transpire if we went to war in Iraq,

[SusanCalvin]

4. Good advice. nt

[Schema Thing]

6. Never, never ever, mention 9/11 as a reason to take money from Wall Street again

....nor as the reason Wall Street gives you money.



that was about the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

[valerief]

9. Yeah, that was lame, along with the paying for Trumps' kids to go to college joke. nt

[valerief]

8. Great post! nt

[brooklynite]

10. Thank you for your advice...here's the problem with it

Sanders (and before that Warren) supporters have been pushing the "inevitably" trope for months. It doesn't exist. Nobody has been saying that Sanders and O'Malley should drop out; nobody has been harping on the fact that Clinton has it "in the bag". And most especially, nobody has been saying they'll "never vote for" Bernie is he's the nominee. However, this is a political discussion board, and the outcome of elections has always been a subject for debate. Clinton supporters have posted opinions saying that they believe she'll win; amazingly enough Clinton opponents have posted opinions saying they believe she'll lose. (nb - at least Clinton supporters base their analysis on polling trends, financial and political support, organizational structure and campaign focus; Sanders supporters seems to focus primarily on anecdotal stories and the emotional resonance of his message to them rather than to the electorate at large).

More importantly however, the discussion of who's likely to win is irrelevant. This is a discussion board for people who like to talk about politics. It has no impact on voting in the real world.

[Doctor_J]

11. many are supporting Clinton because

She's not a white male. There is a fixation that "it's time for a female president, and she's the one who should break that barrier". Most posts that point out her bellicose voting record get a reply along the lines of, "so I take it you object to tough women". I think Mrs Clinton and her supporters are hanging their hats on her gender and the fact that the republicans will nominate a crackpot. Meanwhile wall street is salivating over having such a strong advocate in the white house (again)

[JTFrog]

12. Your concern is noted.

[MohRokTah]

13. Point of order.

You will not be campaigning for Hillary Clinton a year from now because the 58th quadrennial presidential election will have happened the week before November 15.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Great post, but I really wish people would stop saying Bernie isn't going to win..

Because he is going to win. Hillary is Not the "likely" nominee. Not by a long shot!

[Attorney in Texas]

17. I'm not saying "Bernie isn't going to win" -- I think he has a legitimate chance of winning.

But if I was a betting man, I think his current odds of winning are smaller than Clinton's current odds of winning the nomination.

The betting markets have a fairly good track record at predicting the nominee, and they suggest she is the favorite. The comparative weight of party establishment endorsements have a fairly good track record at predicting the nominee, and it suggests she is the favorite. Fundraising has a fairly good track record at predicting the nominee, and it suggests she is the favorite.

With that said, the betting markets, party establishment endorsements, and fundraising trends all thought Bush had a lock on the Republican nomination three months ago, and now all three trends have turned their backs on Bush.

Today is not election day.

Prognostication is not destiny.

[Gothmog]

26. Jeb! is doing poorly on Predictwise but better than Carson

I miss the old Intrade system in that I like the pricing structure on that board. Towards the end of thte 2912 cycle, it was clear that people were playing games with rigging of opening and closing bids and some of the market manipulation tricks that are illegal in the US and so I was not surprised that the CFTC shut Intrade down and it will be interesting to see if predictwise is attacked by the CFTC.

The predictive markets are now backing Rubio and the opposition research firms are gearing up. Carnival Cruz mentioned sugar subsidies at the end of the last debate because Rubio literally has some sugar daddies. I am amused that the predictive markets now have Trump being the next most likely person to be the nominee.

[Attorney in Texas]

27. I like that Sanders is twice as likely as Bush or Cruz and three times as likely as Carson.

[Gothmog]

28. The math is skewed in that the Predictwise has the Democrats at 58% to win general election

That number is based a great deal on Hillary Clinton being the nominee. I would not think that Sanders would be favored in a general election if he is the nominee. I really do not think that Sanders would be able to compete against $400 million of negative ads from the Kochs on the concept of socialists and socialism being bad. These terms poll poorly already and would be radioactive after sufficient negative ads. I doubt that Sanders would have the financial resources to fight such tactics

[Blue_In_AK]

21. Some of Hillary's supporters definitely like to punch down,

and I find it unseemly and off-putting, but I try to remind myself that people sometimes say things they don't really mean in the heat of "battle." Some people's posts I know not to click on.

[Gothmog]

25. I am supporting Clinton but I also welcome the Sanders campaign

I personally like Sanders and agree with many of his positions. I also think that Sanders will help the Clinton campaign and help Clinton be a stronger candidate for the general election. Here is a thread that I started a long time ago on the Clinton board http://www.democraticunderground.com/11074843

Clinton is and will be a stronger candidate due to the issues raised by Sanders. The article cited in that thread makes some good points http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/bernie_sanders_running_for_president_helps_hillary_clinton_the_vermont_senator.html

The first bonus that Sanders provides for Clinton, say her supporters, is that he becomes a foil. One of Clinton’s Democratic allies in Congress explained that with a country that prefers general election candidates closer to the middle, Sanders will always offer proof that Clinton is not really that far left. He does for Clinton what Howard Dean did for John Kerry in 2004.

Clinton can have it both ways though. If Sanders doesn’t press the case against Clinton, she can pick and choose which of his policies she can associate herself with in order to maintain support within her own party among liberals (who already overwhelmingly approve of her candidacy). So when Sanders announced his campaign, Clinton just hugged him, writing on Twitter: “I agree with Bernie. Focus must be on helping America’s middle class. GOP would hold them back. I welcome him to the race. –H.”

Clinton is able to so easily pick and choose that no one noticed that in her pitch as the “people’s champion” she is copying almost word for word language that Sanders used before her in his speeches.

As for the rest of the OP, I think that Clinton has been gearing up for the general election for some time. For a while, the Clinton campaign was nailing Jeb! on a regular basis. Lately, it is hard to decide who to attack in the GOP field given Jeb!'s decline. I am seeing more targeting of Rubio and to a far lesser degree Cruz. I know that while the Texas State Democratic Party is neutral many individuals in the Texas Democratic Party are hoping that Clinton will nominate Julian Castro as her VP.

Finally, I can tell you that the Clinton campaign is gearing up for the general election. I was on a conference call for the legal team. The Clinton voter protection effort is the best organized that I have seen so far. I an very impressed with Marc Elias and the organization of the campaign.

[Betty Karlson]

30. Best OP in a long while.

Please write more pieces like this one. They are so much appreciated.

And thank you for contributing this.

[Attorney in Texas]

31. thanks

[Skinner]

32. Clinton supporter here.

I may have some minor quibbles with some of what you post in your OP, but I agree with the overall point. Clinton supporters (and Hillary Clinton) have little to gain from our attacking Bernie Sanders. Hillary is the overwhelming favorite. Barring some unforeseen disaster, she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Needlessly alienating supporters of other candidates is a really bad idea. I know how irritating it is to read some of the attacks against Hillary here on DU and elsewhere. But our best response is not to get down in the mud.

Post positive support for Hillary. Respond to attacks against her with facts not attacks. Be magnanimous. The vast vast majority of DU members will support Hillary if/when she is the nominee. The wise move is to make it easy for them to do the right thing.