Support NeoGAF

[Hazmat]

What is the end game of not voting for a candidate that most accurately matches my beliefs?

It's choosing between the candidates that you think are most likely to win. Many Americans have beliefs that are closer to a third party fringe candidate than a Democrat or a Republican, but pick a candidate from one of the major parties to try and put a candidate with beliefs close to theirs over the top instead of voting for an ideal candidate has no chance of winning. It's not great, and surely the system sucks, but it's trying to work strategically inside the system to get a good outcome instead of being ineffective wishing for a great outcome.

 

[Cronox]

Anthony Weiner has a question for Bernie Sanders...

Look at how marginalized independent presidential candidates are. They're not even allowed at the debates because of some bullshit collusion between the two main parties. The only way someone like Sanders can hope for change is by getting into those debates and publicly embarassing the other candidates by being the only one in the room to disagree with their establishment BS, and pointing out the ways they're failing their liberal constituents by being the liberal he is.

Seems like a cool guy.

100% unelectable though. So I am not wasting much interest or any $$$ on him.

Don't expect anything but token change unless we get the more unlikely candidate. Despite the focus of much of GAF, social issues are only one part of the scope of politics. Besides those, under Hillary nothing will change.

A republican isn't winning in 2016. Between Trump and other loudly clamoring hardline right-wing minority groups, the Republican candidate will have to pander so hard to win the election that they will be unelectable by the time their candidacy is confirmed. If Bernie Sanders somehow were to make it past the primaries, he will be president. It's unlikely, so for the moment liberals will have to hope he at least pushes the other candidates further to the left. But maybe he can do more, we'll have to see...

Far-be-it for any of us to have optimism about politics at this point, eh? I've been burned before, and didn't expect to vote for an establishment party presidential candidate again. But if it's Bernie, I will.

It's choosing between the candidates that you think are most likely to win. Many Americans have beliefs that are closer to a third party fringe candidate than a Democrat or a Republican, but pick a candidate from one of the major parties to try and put a candidate with beliefs close to theirs over the top instead of voting for an ideal candidate has no chance of winning. It's not great, and surely the system sucks, but it's trying to work strategically inside the system to get a good outcome instead of being ineffective wishing for a great outcome.

At the risk of repeating myself, I find this line of thinking to be complete bullshit, stemming from the rationalization of cognitive dissonance, inexperience with USA politics, or just being ill-informed. I will vote for the candidate I most agree with. If everyone did the same we would have a much healthier political system. Only with Sanders would I consider breaking that rule, and only because I agree 99% with Jill Stein and probably 97% with Bernie Sanders. I can take that compromise. Far too many people vote for candidates that they likely agree only 60% with - that's what I'm talking about here.

 

[Hazmat]

At the risk of repeating myself, I find this line of thinking to be complete bullshit, stemming from the rationalization of cognitive dissonance, inexperience with USA politics, or just being ill-informed. I will vote for the candidate I most agree with. If everyone did the same we would have a much healthier political system.

I wouldn't say that any of those apply to me, but that's the typical response when someone pretty much insults you. I answered a question about why I would vote for someone over someone else who better matched my beliefs.

 

[TekGryphon]

Ha, that's a lot of banks for Hilldawg, so much for regulating the banking system any time soon. Also, if someone can speak on the matter... Why are entertainment corps and University of California (Is that the school system that's donating) donating to Hilldawg?

You need to understand what that graphic is showing and what it's not.

See the column titled "individuals"? The one with 99% of the contributions for Hillary? That means those donations are from individuals within that industry, or who work for that company. Since individual donations are limited, and there's only so many executives in a given company, that means Hillary is pulling in big money from the on-the-ground workers in those businesses and in those industries.

Now, if the PAC number was huge - then I'd say you have a point on financial sector regulations. But they're not. Which tells me this is industry guys who think Hillary is going to be good for the economy. Switch over to the Republican said and you'll see big PAC numbers from these banks. THOSE are the candidates the banking executives feel will be friendly to them.

Bernie Sanders, by comparison, is relying on special interest group money from the leaders of those interest groups (ie: not by the actual workers) who make big checks for Hillary on behalf of the workers they represent.

What is the end game of not voting for a candidate that most accurately matches my beliefs?

The end game is that you don't contribute to the election of a candidate who represents 0% of your beliefs because the candidate who would have beat them, had you voted for them, "only" represented 95% of your beliefs.

The vast majority of Nader voters I know regret contributing to Bush's election. They cost our country massively and they know it. Still, there's always a handful of self-righteous, "purity" voters who are willing to destroy this country so long as it means they get to vote for their "absolutely most bestest favorite candidate ever".

 

[Cronox]

I wouldn't say that any of those apply to me, but that's the typical response when someone pretty much insults you. I answered a question about why I would vote for someone over someone else who better matched my beliefs.

I get that you were conveying the reasoning. I was arguing against the reasoning, not against you or any individual. Didn't mean to single you out or anything. There's a line where people become too cynical to vote for either major party. Unfortunately, most people who reach it decide not to vote at all. If one isn't cynical enough yet, I would suggest they haven't spent enough time experiencing our political system at work.

 

[Jelly Rajah]

if someone bought a raffle ticket at a fair and said "i hope i win", would you really chime in just to say "it's not happening."?

Nah because that raffle ticket holder would still have a shot at winning.

 

[Hazmat]

I get that you were conveying the reasoning. I was arguing against the reasoning, not against you or any individual. Didn't mean to single you out or anything. There's a line where people become too cynical to vote for either major party. Unfortunately, most people who reach it decide not to vote at all. If one isn't cynical enough yet, I would suggest they haven't spent enough time experiencing our political system at work.

I appreciate your point of view, but when you classify my reasoning as "complete bullshit, stemming from the rationalization of cognitive dissonance, inexperience with USA politics, or just being ill-informed" don't come back and pretend you weren't being insulting.

You believe that a vote should be cast for the person that the voter most believes in, whereas I believe that a vote should be cast in a way that the voter hopes will most move the state of the nation in line with their views. They're both valid opinions, and a good demonstration of why each vote is personal. I try to keep my rhetoric in check, just try to do the same.

edit: spelling

 

[Jelly Rajah]

What IS the point is grass roots and message spreading, and also probably Hillary getting hog-tied in a scandal.

I think you heavily underestimate the role capital (money) plays in the election process and in our political system at large. Grass roots and message spreading are pretty much irrelevant at this stage of the game.

Highly recommend that you watch this short interview with David Simon about this topic.

 

[CrankyKong]

Pfft, keep dreaming Bernie-bots.
Hillary is just the kind of slippery, corporatist, war hawk that America needs.

 

[Cronox]

I appreciate you point of view, but when you classify my reasoning as "complete bullshit, stemming from the rationalization of cognitive dissonance, inexperience with USA politics, or just being ill-informed" don't come back and pretend you weren't being insulting.

You believe that a vote should be cast for the person that the voter most believes in, whereas I believe that a vote should be cast in a way that the voter hopes will most move the state of the nation in line with their views. They're both valid opinions, and a good demonstration of why each vote is personal. I try to keep my rhetoric in check, just try to do the same.

"I find this line of thinking to be..." is about as good of a conditional statement as you're going to get on the internet. It's not the typical statement of objective fact that people jump to. I do find it to be complete bullshit. But that's just my opinion. Your reasoning is the same as the majority of the voting public, so you're hardly alone. That said, I'm not a poli-GAF regular so yes, I did come in with a polarized opinion that has more to do with my frustration with US politics than anyone in particular.

Obama's exceptional hope/change campaigns give the lie to the idea that change can come from voting within the establishment. The change we've seen in 8 years is hardly worth celebrating - watching the world's greatest power drag its heels and come to unsatisfying compromises on basic things the rest of the 1st world enjoys is a bit of a drag at best. In my opinion, if the establishment is comfortable with the candidate you're voting for, your vote has failed. I've had enough debates and experience as a voter to have no patience for the usual lines of thinking. My apologies for any perceived abrasiveness, it's hard to separate from the subject for me.

 

[The Purple Pill]

$$$

Of course, that shouldn't stop people from voting for whom they truly want to be president, but then you get into the whole "well I need to vote for X so that Y doesn't win" mentality.

If only every American were to see this,just once, it would change everything.

That list is scary as fuck though, Goldman Sachs, on a presidential donor list should send a chill down any one's spine.

 

[Hazmat]

"I find this line of thinking to be..." is about as good of a conditional statement as you're going to get on the internet. It's not the typical statement of objective fact that people jump to. I do find it to be complete bullshit. But that's just my opinion. Your reasoning is the same as the majority of the voting public, so you're hardly alone. That said, I'm not a poli-GAF regular so yes, I did come in with a polarized opinion that has more to do with my frustration with US politics than anyone in particular.

That really isn't a conditional statement. You said that my opinion was bullshit, and I bristled at that.

Obama's exceptional hope/change campaigns give the lie to the idea that change can come from voting within the establishment. The change we've seen in 8 years is hardly worth celebrating - watching the world's greatest power drag its heels and come to unsatisfying compromises on basic things the rest of the 1st world enjoys is a bit of a drag at best. In my opinion, if the establishment is comfortable with the candidate you're voting for, your vote has failed. I've had enough debates and experience as a voter to have no patience for the usual lines of thinking. My apologies for any perceived abrasiveness, it's hard to separate from the subject for me.

I disagree that the change that we've had isn't worth celebrating, as real change unfortunately often happens in painfully small increments, but how can you say that a vote that isn't against the establishment is a failure? You aren't going to find a permanent revolution, it doesn't exist.

 

[Cronox]

I disagree that the change that we've had isn't worth celebrating, as real change unfortunately often happens in painfully small increments, but how can you say that a vote that isn't against the establishment is a failure? You aren't going to find a permanent revolution, it doesn't exist.

Yeah conditional isn't the right word. "Concession" is what I was going for.

I don't mean to say that it should always be that way. But in the political climate in my life-time, I believe that to be true.

 

[DarkFlow]

If only every American were to see this,just once, it would change everything.

That list is scary as fuck though, Goldman Sachs, on a presidential donor list should send a chill down any one's spine.

You overestimate how much Americans care.

 

[TekGryphon]

If only every American were to see this,just once, it would change everything.

That list is scary as fuck though, Goldman Sachs, on a presidential donor list should send a chill down any one's spine.

If every American were to see it?

Or if every American were to see it and be functionally literate enough to understand what they're seeing?

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Oh please.

No democratic system allows people that are far out of the mainstream to be elected.

Just because you or I like him doesn't mean he is entitled to become President.

I dont think his positions arent mainstream. People just hear socialism and are against it even though they would be for it if they were informed.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

Highly recommend that you watch this short interview with David Simon about this topic.

Here's David Simon echoing what many Hillary Clinton supporters say:

If I get a good third-party candidate with a shot at winning, I’ll vote for a third party to be sure. But he or she has to have a chance at the brass ring. Anyone who thinks there aren’t gradations of bad isn’t even remembering as far back as 2000. It can always get worse, and Ralph Nader taught me that in spades. Mr. Obama exists in a purchased political realm and operates within a rigged game. But there are things that have not gotten worse, and some things that have improved, because he occupies that seat rather than a reactionary.

If the Republican Party finds someone to the left of the Democratic choice, I’ll vote for him. If the libertarians were to abandon their entire sociopolitical creed and acknowledge the selfishness inherent in calls for liberty and freedom without the slightest nod to concommitant civic responsibility, I’d listen to their fellow and consider his campaign. I’m not holding my breath for such outcomes, which is why my vote is likely for the Democratic nominee. Again, bad is not worse. At some point when the tanks started rolling toward Baghdad, I thought that any sensate Nader voters might voice their regret. But, no.

Plenty went into the outcome. The point is that the election proved so close that any sensate voter has to acknowledge that a scenario exists in which a vote for a third-party candidate that has no remote chance of victory could be a wasted one.

My parents were New Deal Democrats. In 1948, my father cast a protest vote for Norman Thomas, the socialist candidate. He wasn’t overjoyed with Truman, but he had reasoned that Dewey was going to win anyway, and this would be his stand against some of Truman’s disappointing compromises. My mother went to bed on election night saying he wasted his vote, that Truman would win.

She never let him forget it, either.
[Source]

I adore David Simon's work, but I completely disagree with that logic. Third-party or "fringe" candidates will always be fringe candidates if those that agree with their ideals refuse to support them out of fear that they'll lose. As one person responded to Simon:

What you forget about the Bush years is that he couldn’t have carried out any of his policies without key Democratic support: the wars, the Patriot Act, the tax cuts, the bailouts… etc.

You also forget that after Obama took office, he brought several Bush people with him, and that he continued all of those policies.

The Democrats and Republicans play the oldest political game there is: they appeal to their respective voting bases by blaming the policies that they themselves carry out on the other party.

to which Simon responded:

Yep. Disappointments abound, some worse than others. Again, a vote cast in this republic — or any republic for that matter — seems always to be a Hobbsian exercise.

David Simon is often very cynical and for very good reason. As he said in that video he thinks that within a generation a violent revolution is potentially imminent. Again, a reasonable thought if the current system doesn't change otherwise. But again as he alluded in that video cynicism doesn't inspire people to vote for change, it inspires them to either vote for the lesser of two evils or not at all. A huge percentage of Americans choose the latter, which reinforces the reasoning for the people who do the former. That's the problem. Willfully contributing to a corrupt system.

Bernie Sanders supporters are not naive suckers who don't understand history, willing to let the world burn just to feel self-righteous. They support him because they're getting fucked by a corrupt system and believe that fighting against it is the best way to change it.

 

[1871]

History teaches us that voting for the lesser of two evils leads the center-Left to drift towards the Right. Inequalities get worse, wars spread. Enough with the realpolitik calls, the rich get richer and people think that is somehow the reasonable approach.

 

[Cheebo]

If only every American were to see this,just once, it would change everything.

That list is scary as fuck though, Goldman Sachs, on a presidential donor list should send a chill down any one's spine.

You live in a fantasy world if you think many Americans care at all about this. Most if showed will respond with some form of "So what?".

 

[thiscoldblack]

If only people voted on who they believe is best for the country instead of voting who they think has a higher chance of winning (because of popularity) or rooting only for their party color never mind the consequences, then this country would just be a little bit better.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Support Bernie Sanders in the primary if you want, but vote in the general election if he doesn't win please.

If watching this old Daily Show marathon of the early 2000s has proven anything to me, it's that it can ALWAYS be worse.

 

[Cheebo]

Support Bernie Sanders in the primary if you want, but vote in the general election if he doesn't win please.

If watching this old Daily Show marathon of the early 2000s has proven anything to me, it's that it can ALWAYS be worse.

There are A LOT of young liberals (including here on GAF) who really did not become at all politically aware before 2008.

Which results in them spouting out two key talking points that have no basis in reality:

That the electable Democrats are no different than Republicans (a view similiar young liberals of a previous generation stated in 2000) which the Bush years have shown to be VASTLY wrong.

And that this is a liberal majority country in which the Democrat always wins so nominate the most "true" liberal candidate there is. Which again, is untrue. Majority of the country is not liberal not even close. Republicans have a solid shot at winning.

 

[Macho Madness]

Ah, the Paulian "if more people would just vote for who they actually wanted to win" thing has started.

Here's the thing you don't understand with that line of logic: Most of the country disagrees with you. Once you realize that, you'll be a lot better off.

 

[Catchpenny]

Saw a comment on Twitter recently that the election should be Trump vs. Sanders, so that we can decide once and for all whether America is worth saving.

The funny thing is that almost all of the 847 Republicans running for president are virtually indistinguishable from Trump on most of the issues, they just say it in nicer terms. Bernie against any of them would be a battle of extremes in mainstream American politics, and one he would have a shot at winning, though it would be far from certain. A respected "moderate" Republican like Romney would crush Sanders, but the only ones in the field are Bush and possibly Kasich.

Anyway, I'll vote for Bernie, who is one of the few Senators worth a damn. In the likely event that Hillary wins, though, I'll be happy to vote for her.

 

[Arkeband]

Ah, the Paulian "if more people would just vote for who they actually wanted to win" thing has started.

Here's the thing you don't understand with that line of logic: Most of the country disagrees with you. Once you realize that, you'll be a lot better off.

I think this is a pretty dishonest thing to say - it shirks the burden of context that "most of the country" is not even politically educated to know what the fuck to think, so they just vote based on their gut ("he seems like a nice guy", or "I hate Mexicans so Trump 2016!").

 

[Durante]

I read about this guy recently, and was also impressed. I was not aware the US had actual left-wing politicians.

 

[chaosblade]

Still, there's always a handful of self-righteous, "purity" voters who are willing to destroy this country so long as it means they get to vote for their "absolutely most bestest favorite candidate ever".

This is me. Fuck our first past the post system that "forces" us to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Not like either party is ever going to make any effort to change it either because it would only hurt them.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

I know some people say no to Sanders to winning, but curious, before Obama really started coming up, who was the big democrat candidate?

 

[-COOLIO-]

Nah because that raffle ticket holder would still have a shot at winning.

y'know, that was a good comeback. i mean, i disagree, but i respect the comeback.

 

[AstroNut325]

I know some people say no to Sanders to winning, but curious, before Obama really started coming up, who was the big democrat candidate?

Hilary.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Hilary.

Exactly. Hillary was the big shot for the nomination and then Obama came around and toppled that and won. Why can't Sanders do the same?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Exactly. Hillary was the big shot for the nomination and then Obama came around and toppled that and won. Why can't Sanders do the same?

Because at this point in the race Hillary was 15% ahead in the polls, and Obama still only won narrowly. Sanders is 40% behind.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Exactly. Hillary was the big shot for the nomination and then Obama came around and toppled that and won. Why can't Sanders do the same?

Because Obama was a charismatic master politician who put together the most powerful bloc of voters in recent memory? Let's not compare the most transformational political figure of his generation to a 74 year old white socialist, please. It doesn't make sense.

Sanders is currently doing very well with college aged whites while Hillary holds Obama's base (Hispanics, blacks, young people, women, etc).

 

[YoungHav]

Didn't Hillary's 2008 campaign play the race card and attempt to scare white people by revealing Reverend Wright?

 

[dramatis]

Ha, that's a lot of banks for Hilldawg, so much for regulating the banking system any time soon. Also, if someone can speak on the matter... Why are entertainment corps and University of California (Is that the school system that's donating) donating to Hilldawg?

You might have to take a good look at the numbers columns to the left and at the table headers. All of Hillary's donations from University of California are under "Individuals" and none of the donations come from "PACs". Individual donations are limited (I think it's $2700?), so it means a large number of individuals associated with University of California donated to her campaign. There is no PAC for the UoC as far as I know. I think it's because the population of individuals associated with UoC is so large overall that they ended up with a top contributor spot.

If every American were to see it?

Or if every American were to see it and be functionally literate enough to understand what they're seeing?

You might have to give up on that. Everyone who quoted it and said, "Look, you can see how Hillary is" is only looking at the names column, not at the numbers columns. Otherwise they might be a bit miffed that the majority of Bernie's money comes from PACs.

 

[benjipwns]

Didn't Hillary's 2008 campaign play the race card and attempt to scare white people by revealing Reverend Wright?

They also played up the birther movement.

 

[Septimus Prime]

The vast majority of Nader voters I know regret contributing to Bush's election. They cost our country massively and they know it. Still, there's always a handful of self-righteous, "purity" voters who are willing to destroy this country so long as it means they get to vote for their "absolutely most bestest favorite candidate ever".

This is true, but it's not a very apt comparison to the current situation. Bernie is not running as a third party candidate who would essentially "steal" votes from the party whose platform is closer to his party's, like Nader's Green Party did to the Democrats.

 

[JustenP88]

You might have to give up on that. Everyone who quoted it and said, "Look, you can see how Hillary is" is only looking at the names column, not at the numbers columns. Otherwise they might be a bit miffed that the majority of Bernie's money comes from PACs.

So, individual employees of these organizations are just coincidentally donating to Hillary in huge numbers? Is that the rationale behind the defense of this chart? It's not coming from the PACs so it's inconsequential?

 

[benjipwns]

This is true, but it's not a very apt comparison to the current situation. Bernie is not running as a third party candidate who would essentially "steal" votes from the party whose platform is closer to his party's, like Nader's Green Party did to the Democrats.

But when Bernie loses, they might not do their legal duty as voters and vote straight-ticket for the Democratic Party. They might do worse than vote for the person they most agree with, they might not vote at all.

 

[Septimus Prime]

But when Bernie loses, they might not do their legal duty as voters and vote straight-ticket for the Democratic Party. They might do worse than vote for the person they most agree with, they might not vote at all.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, so I apologize in advance if you are, but how likely do you think it is that someone would care enough to vote in the primary and then somehow stop caring to vote in the general?

 

[S-Wind]

In 2007 how many people said Obama is unelectable?

"Not only is he Black, his first name is very foreign, his middle name is Hussein, and his last name sounds almost like America's most loathed most wanted man!!!"

EDIT: wrong year

 

[Cheebo]

In 2003 how many people said Obama is unelectable?

"Not only is he Black, his first name is very foreign, his middle name is Hussein, and his last name sounds almost like America's most loathed most wanted man!!!"

Nobody because he wasn't a senator or running for president in 2003.

 

[vicissitudes]

Ah, the Paulian "if more people would just vote for who they actually wanted to win" thing has started.

Here's the thing you don't understand with that line of logic: Most of the country disagrees with you. Once you realize that, you'll be a lot better off.

I think most Bernie supporters know that. The question is, do you vote based on your personal beliefs and values, or do you vote based on what most of the country thinks?

At one time in this country most people thought gay marriage is wrong. Should gays have given up since most of the country disagreed with them?

I think it's okay to know Bernie will probably lose and still support him because you agree with him. To do otherwise seems disingenuous.

 

[benjipwns]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, so I apologize in advance if you are, but how likely do you think it is that someone would care enough to vote in the primary and then somehow stop caring to vote in the general?

They might be ticked off when rather than being able to vote for a sane centrist candidate like Bernie Sanders they'd have to vote for a right-wing sellout corporate zealot like Clinton and do something even more sane like stay home.

 

[A_Gorilla]

They might be ticked off when rather than being able to vote for a sane centrist candidate like Bernie Sanders they'd have to vote for a right-wing sellout corporate zealot like Clinton and do something even more sane like stay home.

Clinton right-wing? Are you serious?

 

[nelsonroyale]

Sounds like someone actually worth voting for. Most of the electorate seemed to be duped by jaded 'pragmatism' however.

A_Gorilla: Centre-right sure. In any reasonable political spectrum at least. Maybe not on the American one.

 

[benjipwns]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/247920-sanders-rains-on-hillarys-parade

The Vermont independent, who’s challenging Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary next year, hijacked a set of microphones — usually reserved for Senate leaders — after leaving a private meeting between the former secretary of State and Senate Democrats in the Capitol Tuesday afternoon.

He then used the impromptu press conference to question Clinton’s populist bona fides on a range of issues, including trade policy, the Iraq War, regulating big banks and tackling climate change.

“Secretary Clinton and I disagree on a number of issues,” he said to a mob of reporters.

On trade, Sanders said three decades of deals — including the North American Free Trade Agreement signed by former President Clinton — “have been disastrous for American workers.”

“Secretary Clinton, I believe, has a different view on that issue,” he said.

On climate change, Sanders noted his staunch opposition to the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which will transport “some of the dirtiest fuel on this planet.”

“I think Secretary Clinton has not been clear on her views on that issue,” he said.

And on the economy, Sanders is pushing a policy package featuring a $15 minimum wage and $1 trillion in infrastructure spending.

“I think the secretary has not been quite so clear on those issues,” he charged.

Elsewhere in the Capitol, Clinton’s reception was much friendlier. The former New York senator met with the full House Democratic Caucus, which received her with wild cheers and shrieking whistles, and held separate audiences with the Black, Hispanic, Asian Pacific American and Progressive caucuses, all of which embraced her visit with open arms.

Indeed, whatever liberal angst there is over Clinton outside the Beltway, it was nowhere to be seen in the House on Tuesday.

“I think some of the progressive issues and members have been kind of crying in the wilderness for awhile, and now those issues like climate change, like income inequality, jobs agenda, they’re resonating with the public. And I think that Hillary understands that,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), another CPC member, emphasized that it’s “too soon to actually rate a person.”

“But,” she added, “I think she’s doing a phenomenal job in terms of putting the issues out in a way where people understand ... the fact that there are millions of people who are fighting and working to get into the middle class who are living in poverty, and they deserve a policy agenda that’s going to lift them up.

“That’s a big issue, and she’s talked about that in a very bold way.”

...

“We talked about the need for Asian Americans to be included in presidential appointments,” Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said after the meeting with Clinton. “Right now, there are no APIs [Asian Pacific Islanders] in the Cabinet. There is no API that is a Supreme Court justice. We talked about the pipeline that leads to those kinds of positions and the need for inclusion there as well.”

...

The Democrats did not appear to press Clinton on some of the topics mentioned by Sanders in his public comments. Neither trade nor Keystone were mentioned in the Progressive Caucus meeting, according to Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.). And although Clinton told the lawmakers she’s committed to hiking the minimum wage, they didn’t push her on the $15 rate they’re championing.

“We didn’t get into specifics about a number,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).

Clinton’s policy tour was about building relationships as well. President Obama’s outreach to Congress has long been a bone of contention for many Democrats who think he hasn’t done nearly enough to communicate with his allies on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a Clinton supporter, said a part of her barnstorming effort was to send an early message that she would manage the White House differently.

“Coming so early in the campaign cycle to the House Democratic Caucus is a very smart move on her part and absolutely says, ‘I want to build partnerships,’ ” Connolly said. “And she said that: ‘I want to partner with you. That’s why I’m here, and if I haven’t earned your support, I hope to do so and will make every effort to do so. But we’re going to work together.’ ”

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who heads the Progressive Caucus with Grijalva, echoed that message.

“Even people who are your friends want to feel the friendship every now and again,” he said. “And so to show up and take questions and just sort of spend some time is indicating that, ‘I value you, I think you’re important, I care about what you say.’ ”

Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) was not so circumspect.

“I’m ready for Hillary, baby!” he said.

 

[benjipwns]

This Is How Hillary Loses the Primary

Anyway you look at it, Senator Bernie Sanders is making history and may very well play a deciding role in who will be the next president. How real is the Sanders movement? Well, at this point in his campaign in 2007, Barack Obama had 180,000 donors on his way to setting records with low-donor contributions; Bernie Sanders has 250,000.

Hillary Clinton’s greatest strength—more than being a woman, more than being a Clinton—is the fact that polls show her consistently beating Republicans. Democrats see her as someone who can hold the White House. If she loses to Bernie in Iowa or New Hampshire, most likely the subsequent polls will show her losing to a handful of top Republicans.

And then what happens? Will the Democratic Party rally around her?

Perhaps. But more likely party voices, with great and solemn regret (masking their deep panic), will begin to say that Hillary had her chance, she fought a good fight, but we can’t lose the White House.

Who would get in? I still think Elizabeth Warren could be drawn in under this scenario. It’s very different to get into a race to challenge the inevitable Hillary Clinton versus getting into a race to save the party from a wounded Hillary Clinton. John Kerry could get in. Who knows? Perhaps Martin O’Malley does emerge as the viable alternative.

The potentially mortal threat to Hillary’s candidacy

And there’s another reason to take Sanders seriously. If Hillary loses the first two states next year—and she could—the landscape will change, just as it did for Lyndon Johnson in 1968, when he effectively "lost" the New Hampshire primary by winning just 49-42 over Senator Eugene McCarthy. That led to LBJ’s withdrawal from the race and the subsequent entry of Senator Bobby Kennedy of New York. RFK had been waiting on the sidelines until then, uncertain about whether he should get in.

Who’s the Bobby Kennedy in this race? Elizabeth Warren.

If Sanders can manage to raise $15 million online in small grassroots donations in just two months, as he has, imagine what Warren—whose stature is far higher—would be able to generate, merely by declaring an interest. So far, Warren has demurred. But in the same way that Obama said he wouldn’t run and Kennedy said he wouldn’t, circumstances and changing poll numbers affect political decisions, and could yet bring the Massachusetts senator into the race.