2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I've gotta say this. [View all]RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)First you declare the meaning of the campaign of Bernie Sanders:
"Sending as many Sanders pledged delegates as possible is about demanding a New, New Deal in America. It is a declaration that we are out here, and are a force to be contended with."
That's not at all what it means to me. 'We' aren't a 'force' to be reckoned with unless we actually assert the positions we established a long time ago. You may think that there is some sort of message to be sent here. I sent my message a long time ago. I committed to myself well before the declaration of Bernie Sanders' candidacy that I would not demand, of myself, that I must vote for a candidate for the Presidency whose candidacy is based on 1) being the spouse of a prior President, and 2) a marketing machine built with very, very big money, spinning tales of accomplishment and 'championing' causes when, in reality, she has accomplished little and is in no way a champion of Democratic values or causes.
I, and a great many Democrats with similar perspectives, have been very clear about our positions from the beginning. Our opposition to Hillary Clinton's candidacy for the office of the President is not casual, subject to reconsideration, or simply some kind of bargaining chip to be cashed in for the highest value. We really don't want a President Hillary Clinton, throwing the doors of the corridors of power wide open to those who have poured vast sums of money into her decades-long ambition project. There are a lot of winners in that scenario, but unless you have a net worth of at least 50 million dollars and have funneled some non-trivial amount of that wealth into the coffers of the Clinton Foundation, you're not going to be one of them.
And then, this:
"Threatening to withhold support from Hillary undermines that message."
Hillary Clinton never had my support. Withholding something from someone requires that you once either provided it to that party or indicated that you would. Otherwise, not voting for someone is just that - especially when you never suggested that you would ever do so, or, as in my case, made it clear that you wouldn't. People who interpreted such assertions as reflecting attitudes that would likely change down the road were substituting their own meaning for that which was plainly there.
I'm not a young man, have voted for countless Democrats at all levels of elected office over the course of my life, and never, once, voted for a Republican. The latter isn't going to change. But, if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee for the Presidency, I will not vote for a candidate for the office for the first time in my life. And it's not about spite, it's not about Bernie Sanders or pouting that a candidate that I could support did not secure the nomination. It's about respect for my country and the not-quite-dead-yet promise of genuine representative democracy. It's about self-respect and honor. And it's about rejecting the idea that Americans are suckers and fools, easily manipulated into willingly and directly supporting people for elected office who could not possibly represent their interests and values, because the 'other side' is so much worse. That's not a reason to elect someone to high office. It's a reason to make some very serious changes.
And if you are frustrated, try to imagine for a moment how frustrated Democrats like me have become. There are lots of us. And the frustration is not merely about a single election of a United States President.