Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Let's just get this out in the open. [View all]Gothmog
(180,054 posts)40. How Bernie Sanders will help Hillary Clinton in the general election
I found this article to be interesting http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/bernie_sanders_running_for_president_helps_hillary_clinton_the_vermont_senator.html
If this continues to be the Vermont senators approach, Sanders will be more of a help to Clintons presidential chances than he will be to his own.
The first bonus that Sanders provides for Clinton, say her supporters, is that he becomes a foil. One of Clintons 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.....
In 2012 Rep. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had a symbiotic relationship in the Republican campaign. Paul elevated his own profile and gave his voters an outlet, but he never pointed out the yawning gaps between what he claimed to believe so deeply and the positions of the man who was on his way to being the partys inevitable nominee. Its way too early to see if Sanders will play the same role for Clinton, but it has started out that way.
Sanders is such a long shot that those who share his views might be OK with the consolation prize of imitation from Clinton. But if her move to the left is simply rhetorical, she can shed that rhetoric in the general election as candidates often do. This would be another reason for Sanders to press his case with more definition.
The first bonus that Sanders provides for Clinton, say her supporters, is that he becomes a foil. One of Clintons 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.....
In 2012 Rep. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had a symbiotic relationship in the Republican campaign. Paul elevated his own profile and gave his voters an outlet, but he never pointed out the yawning gaps between what he claimed to believe so deeply and the positions of the man who was on his way to being the partys inevitable nominee. Its way too early to see if Sanders will play the same role for Clinton, but it has started out that way.
Sanders is such a long shot that those who share his views might be OK with the consolation prize of imitation from Clinton. But if her move to the left is simply rhetorical, she can shed that rhetoric in the general election as candidates often do. This would be another reason for Sanders to press his case with more definition.
In 2014, Kerry did look very moderate compared to Howard Dean and Ron Paul did in effect work with Romney in 2012. I really think that having Sanders in the race will help HRC and get rid of the talking point that the primary process is a coronation. I remember the Ron Paul/Mitt Romney relationship in 2012 (Paul is from near my neck of the woods) and the two never directly attacked the other. Paul got increased exposure for his positions and Romney was made to look more reasonable.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
78 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Maybe it can give the eventual candidate a better sense of what voting Dems are thinking?
CanonRay
May 2015
#4
IMO, the purpose of primaries should be to hash out which candidate best represents
winter is coming
May 2015
#8
Obviously the opposition has not hurt her in any way so I say go ahead and oppose!
leftofcool
May 2015
#9
I oppose her because I want to win in the General. She is a loser for our party on that alone.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#11
I believe winning in 2016 is critical. I'd rather Clinton spend time and money speaking out against
Hoyt
May 2015
#14
If God wanted you to have a choice, there would be multiple Hillary Clintons.
Liberal Veteran
May 2015
#16
Yes, and that is not the rush. We are working on the primaries now. Iowa and NH are the first ones
jwirr
May 2015
#61
I do not know what that date is because I no longer live in Iowa. But I know that is when the
jwirr
May 2015
#72
In the primary, it is good. Having options is good otherwise why have a primary?
uppityperson
May 2015
#35
Right. being an independent is so advantageous that everyone wants to do it!
LondonReign2
May 2015
#73
LMAO, Hillary has 91% name recognition, hundreds of millions of $$$, DNC backing, has been
merrily
May 2015
#51
I'd rather avoid a Dem crash and burn though I imagine some would find it thrilling. nt
ucrdem
May 2015
#53
In your mind, it seems to be inconceivable that Hillary would lose the general.
merrily
May 2015
#55
I think it is a good thing - gets the Dems thinking about the issues and how significant
DrDan
May 2015
#42
I was in favor of Bernie joining the race. Seeing how his supporters act, now I am not so sure.
stevenleser
May 2015
#52
It's lazy and counterproductive. If I was advocating for Bernie, I would have a lot to say
stevenleser
May 2015
#67
It's a waste of time. Clinton is being coronated and will preside as a far right "democrat"
Doctor_J
May 2015
#74