Part 3, in which I assert that Sanders is electable if we vote for him and argue that we treat the primary process as our opportunity to nominate the candidate who we believe would make the best president.  I take issue with a) fellow Democrats calling Sanders “unelectable” and b) throwing in early for Hillary Clinton because they believe a) and that they want to be “pragmatic”.  It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What follows below is from several months ago. It all started with this post to the listserv (not by me):

As many of you know, I have a habit of supporting the most liberal Democratic Party candidate with any chance of winning … only to see the eventual Democratic Nominees Gore and Coakley lose, in close elections to Bush, Scott Brown and Baker.

I have therefore decided to get PRAGMATIC early on, as the 2016 Presidential election takes shape.

I believe the Democratic Nominee is absolutely going to be Hillary Clinton. There will be no President Sanders, O’Malley or Chafee. (Although I am drawn to some of their views.) ….

I have had my differences with Hillary and I was with Obama in 2008. But I will strongly be with Hillary this time around.  She has been Secretary of State, a US  Senator, our First Lady, and she is indeed READY to be President. She stands head and shoulders over any Republican candidate.

More importantly, in my view, she is the only Democratic candidate with a chance of beating the Republican Nominee and their money machine in November, 2016.

I believe it will be a scary close election… I can help you get involved, if [you’re] interested….

My reply:

Heck, if we’re going to capitulate this early on then why stop with the primary?   Why don’t we just nominate the least objectionable Republican and call it a day?   A national unity ticket.   Republicans and independents of goodwill would surely endorse the idea and we can get past the ugly business of politics and on to solving our country’s problems…  Or maybe not.

It would be difficult for me to overstate how bad an idea I think it is to get behind Sec. Clinton because she is the inevitable nominee   [The DTC member advocating for Clinton] wrote “She is READY to be President.”  Ready to do what?   What do you (“you” = anyone here on the listserv) believe that she will do that deserves my vote?    What actions will she take to address stagnating middle-class wages?  What does she propose to do to address that fact worker compensation has lagged behind productivity since roughly the start of the Reagan administration?   What’s her position on the TPP?   In hindsight, does she believe NAFTA was a mistake?  If so, how will that affect trade policies that she pursues?  Will she spend political capital to enact a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act?   We’re facing some serious environmental problems.  What’s her plan for reducing CO2 emissions?  What’s her energy policy?   We pay about twice as much for our health care as other first world countries.  Does she believe that’s a problem?  If so, what does she propose to do about it?   (NB:  The ACA has been good for getting more people covered.  It’s not doing much for cost control.)  On foreign policy, how will she deal with Israel-Palestine?  Iraq?  Syria?  Russia?  China?  Those questions aren’t specific to her.  We need to be asking them of every candidate.  The primary process is about selecting the candidate who we want to lead the country.  Policy positions matter.   Track record matters.

I know, I know, 95% of the voting public doesn’t give a shit about policy positions or their consequences.  We should attempt to engage those people and get them to give a shit.   Choosing a candidate because they’re least likely to offend numbskulls is not a recipe for future success – either for our party or, more significantly, for the country.

I’m supporting Sen. Sanders because my view of what’s good for the country is well-aligned with his and I believe that he’s sincere.   With Sec. Clinton, it’s a mixed bag.   If she wins the nomination I’ll certainly support her but, given Sanders as an alternative, there’s no way in hell I’ll line up behind her before the first primary takes place.   (That is unless someone can sell me that on substance she’s superior to Sanders.  Feel free to have at it.  I’m all ears.)   There are substantive differences between all four candidates currently in the race.   I hope that they will sell themselves on their merits and that we will vote accordingly.

He responded with:

Glad to get a discussion going.

I agree with Bernie on most of the issues and I can support those issues without supporting his candidacy.The truth is that while Bernie will motivate the liberals in the Democratic Party, the country will not elect him, because of his views.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have developed the formula for winning the national election which is to appeal to the moderate and mainstream voters.  I hope the Primary builds support for the Democratic Party and our eventual nominee.  Hillary’s resume is stronger than any other candidate.

After a bit of back and forth another DTC member expressed frustration over it being essentially a Clinton vs Sanders primary:

I’m not sure what choices we have for candidates yet but if its one candidate that is smart and capable but feels entitled to demand my vote and is viewed as untrustworthy by a majority of the public versus another candidate that is a trustworthy unelectable and a socialist, what kind of choice are we really being offered?

Frankly, I’d be thrilled if there were a few 50-something FDR-liberal governors or senators in the race.  Unfortunately, there are no such people and Bernie is pretty damn good so let it ride.   Bernie’s running as an FDR Democrat, with a little Teddy Roosevelt thrown in for good measure.  No Democrat should be unhappy with what he’s advocating for or that he’s Clinton’s principal challenger.   I take issue with fellow Democrats calling him unelectable.   My last post on the subject:

Enough with “unelectable”.   I declare a moratorium on the word!  Stop it!   It’s defeatist.  Unproductive.   Sanders is unelectable if he can’t win the nomination.   If he wins the nomination then he’s got a shot.   Think about it for a moment, if he wins the nomination then wouldn’t it be really unlikely to be an isolated event.   Wouldn’t it be more likely that it would be part of a sea change in American political thinking?   If that happens – and I’m not holding my breath – then he’d absolutely be electable.   The purpose of the primary process is to nominate the candidate we believe would make the best president.  Let’s not short-circuit it.  Let’s have the primaries and the caucuses and let the nomination process work its course.  (And on the theme of electability, as Bob pointed out yesterday Clinton 49% and Sanders 41% in the recent Wisconsin straw poll – http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/wisconsin-straw-poll-surprise-a-narrow-clinton-win-118727.html)

As far as throwing in with Clinton from the get-go if you prefer Sanders on the issues:  If you go all in for Clinton now then you throw away whatever leverage a Sanders candidacy has.   The only way the Sanders camp gets substantive concessions on policy is if Clinton believes there’s a risk she will lose – either the Democratic nomination or the general because enough potential D voters decide that – sans Sanders – “None of the above” is a better option than D or R.

If you believe Clinton is the best candidate on her merits then support her.   I’m not arguing otherwise but whoever your candidate is support them based on their merits not because all the cool kids say they associate the other ones with words which have negative connotations.    If you believe Clinton’s foreign policy experience makes her more qualified then say so.  If you think Sanders’ proposals to expand Social Security and provide free college education aren’t viable then say so.   Those are arguments.   I may disagree with the details but I respect arguments.   In contrast, declaring that someone is unelectable because they’re an [insert term with negative connotation] without making an argument in favor of a better candidate is bullshit – absolutely bullshit.   It’s the stuff of high school popularity contests.  We can do better than that and we need to.  Writing off candidates by calling them names – Sanders “Socialist” or Clinton any one of the names she gets called – is an attempt to get people not to think.  It is an attempt to get them to respond with their medulla rather than their cerebral cortex.   For the last 30+ years the right-wing has been very effective at getting people to respond viscerally rather than thoughtfully.   The results have been an unmitigated disaster.  We need to start turning that around.   Towards that end, a review of Sanders’ positions doesn’t indicate much in the way of Socialist intentions.   He’s pretty much in line with where pro-New-Deal and liberal Democrats were mid-20th century.    If someone says they won’t vote for Sanders because he’s a “Socialist” ask them what in particular they object to.   What does he advocate that they believe is a bad idea?  If they offer specifics then ask them what they think is a better path forward and why.  If you disagree then explain why.  Engage them.   As far as Sanders’ positions go, if New-Deal-style policies are not your thing then they’re not your thing and you’ll support a different candidate.  Fair enough.   But don’t go name-calling.   Make a real argument for why people should vote your way.

[Ed.:  Not accepting comments.  The spambots are running rampant.]