Like with any collective body, the actions and beliefs of some cannot be imparted to the many or the all. It is my opinion that much of the discourse on DU is tainted by an assumption that an argument set forth by a supporter of a candidate or position applies to all who are similarly aligned. This results in a poster's points being negated or criticism based on a different person's position. Instead of listening to the points being made and responding accordingly, the response all too often brings up past and unrelated issues. It distracts the discussion and gets it stuck re-fighting a fight in which the original poster may have never been involved.
In this respect, I speak only for myself as everyone else here speaks for themselves. And I would like to counter some common assumptions imputed to Bernie supporters as a whole.
1- FBI Investigation - I am almost certain that Hillary will not be indicted and I certainly hope she is not. That is not how I would want Bernie to secure the nomination and it would only be a disaster for the entire party, including Bernie, in the fall. Regardless, the FBI investigation and the fact that at least two federal judges have found at least some evidence of bad faith on the part of the State Dept. are issues that will continue to harm Hillary and is a continued liability for Democrats if she is our eventual nominee. I think denying it, ignoring it or dismissing it as the result of right wing machinations is not helpful. While right wing witch hunting may have been the origination of the issue, it has longs since moved far beyond that.
2- Superdelegates - They are undemocratic and irrelevant. Asking them to vote based on any preferred metric is as arbitrary as them voting purely on their own discretion. They will vote how they want. They simply shouldn't be there. They are unnecessary and if the party is so concerned that it can't trust the voters to make an informed decision, the party needs to ask why and make the necessary changes. We don't need insiders casting weighted votes to usurp our preference. Having said that, asking supers to follow their state result is silly. Asking them to follow the popular vote winner is silly. Asking them to vote for any of these reasons is silly. We nominate by delegates and allocate delegates according to the rules and based on voting results. I am of the opinion that the supers should not get in the way of those results. I think whomever wins a majority of the pledged delegates should be the nominee and the super delegates should effectuate that to the extent delegates in addition to the pledged delegates are needed to get to 2,383. However, since super delegates are given unbound discretion, it should not be a surprise to them to be contacted and lobbied by voters to go one way or the other.
3- All votes matter - All states, all votes and all voters matter. The primary, in addition to deciding our nominee, also serves the purpose of engaging voters and getting them invested in the process. in the nomination process, delegates rule the day and every delegate counts. That means every voter in every state counts and matters. Although the delegates are not divided equally among populations, all pledged delegates are created equal. To the extent arguments are made that a blue state win should be valued more, or a small state valued less, etc., and it comes from both sides, for the nomination process all delegates, all states, all voters matter and matter equally. It can be argued that a region, state or certain demographics are indicative of greater potential strength or are of greater significance in the Fall, but that is really unrelated to the nomination process unless future primary voters use that as part of their considerations or those arguments are relied upon by superdelegates in considering their support. I think either candidate will do well in the fall and either candidate can and would win.
Those are off the top of my head, but there are more. Feel free to add your own brush narrowing thoughts or positions.
|
