As I've mentioned before, I don't like posting or responding to political stuff on Facebook. Sometimes I can't help it, and I put something up, in which case one of two things happens: (a) nobody says anything; (b) I get sucked into a war of posts that I instantly regret because I expend a bunch of time and energy and nobody ever changes their mind about anything. So if the best case scenario for something is that I get ignored, then it is probably not worth doing that something. I often wish I could be the type of person who could mix it up on Facebook without becoming subsumed by it. But I can't, so I usually don't.
Lately, however, I've really had to bite my tongue (pinch my fingers?) at every turn. I have a few pro-Trump friends who post stupid shit (it's pro-Trump, after all); I have a few libertarian friends who post stupid shit (they really love guns and really hate the $15/hour minimum wage); and I have a few nature-worshiping friends who post stupid shit (anti-vax garbage, Food Babe nonsense, etc.). But lately the worst, if only due to the sheer volume of their posts, are my "Bernie or Bust" friends. This post is for all of them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm losing respect for Bernie Sanders and his "revolution" with each passing day and each passing accusation of a "rigged" system. You mean the rigged system, in which the person winning is actually the person with $3 million more votes than her opponent? Again I will ask the question I've been asking repeatedly: How else should it be? For somebody running on a populous platform, Bernie Sanders is surprisingly indifferent to what the populous actually wants.
The thing is I really liked Sanders when he first got into the race, and I still agree with him on most issues. If he was going to be the Democratic nominee, I would support him, but, barring something very unusual, he's not. And what's worse, as his loss becomes more and more certain, he's spinning off further and further into the land of tinfoil hats and truthers, and he's taking many of his supporters with him. Sanders and Sanders fans repeatedly rail against a rigged system, but their notion of what this means is becoming more and more refined to the point that their current definition seems to be "any system in which Sanders is not the winner." It is getting to be quite absurd.
I mean, there are huge problems with "the system" in this country. You need huge amounts of money to run; the two major parties have a virtual duopoly on every important office; the winner-take-all (by state) Electoral College makes it so that only the votes in a few swing states actually "matter"; there is voter suppression through ID laws, long lines, etc.; so on and so forth. But if you just look at the primaries, in particular the Democratic primary, it is reasonably fair. It's not perfect, but it does have one really big thing going for it: The candidate whom most voters pick is the candidate who wins. That's it. That's how a relatively obscure one-term senator won in 2008 against the "establishment choice," and it's how Bernie could have won against the very same opponent. Turn out more voters and get more votes. Bernie tried. He's still trying. But he can't do it. His ideas aren't quite popular enough. Yes, it sucks, but that's how it goes.
And, now, instead of accepting this reality and making the best of it, he and many of his supporters are deeply in denial about it, blaming everybody and everything except their lack of votes. And if you really look at the things they are complaining about, there is just no there there. To wit:
Superdelegates
In theory superdelegates could be incredibly unfair, and I wish there weren't so many of them in the Democratic party. (I'd be fine to get rid of them altogether.) However, in practice, it's a moot point, because there has never been a Democratic primary in my lifetime (I only went back to 1976) in which a candidate had more pledged delegates, but lost due to superdelegates. In fact, 2008 completely belies the "superdelegates decide" narrative, because Clinton started with more than Obama, but they switched once Obama started beating her. This almost certainly would happen for Sanders if he started beating Hillary too. Sanders would be the Obama of 2016, if people voted for him like they did for Obama. But, like I said above, they aren't.
Also, it is more than a bit ironic that Sanders' only path to the nomination now relies largely on superdelegates. Do his supporters know this? Do they care? They are basically saying, "Superdelegates are totally unfair... except when our candidate needs them."
Closed Primaries
Bernie does better when independents are allowed to vote, not just registered Dems. But this is a tough one for me. Does it make sense that people who are not Democrats are allowed to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is? If we had a viable third party in this country (or better yet, viable fourth, fifth, and sixth parties) I would say no. But Sanders' hand is a bit forced, in that he has to run as a Democrat to be taken seriously (see Nader, Ralph). This inclines me to say yes to open primaries, as it is the only way people who aren't Democrats or Republicans can have a say real in who the candidates will be. However, I understand why the Democratic party wouldn't want it this way. I see both sides of this one.
But even if I concede that non-Democrats should be allowed to vote in primaries (and they are in some states) there are two big reasons why I still don't believe closed primaries have rigged the system in Clinton's favor: (a) Although Sanders does better in open primaries, he still doesn't do as good as Clinton. Doing the addition from this page, I get 798 pledged delegates for Clinton in open or semi-open primaries, and 547 for Sanders. Since pledged delegates are awarded more or less proportionally to the vote, this means Clinton beats Sanders 59%-41% even when independents are allowed to vote. (b) Sanders does especially well in caucuses, which are the least representative of the people and have the most byzantine rules. It's funny how I never hear Sanders' supporters complain about the unfairness of caucuses. Yes... funny.
I thought to myself, "Media blackout? That doesn't sound right." So I Googled "Bernie Sanders New York rally" and here is a sample from the first page:
Lately, however, I've really had to bite my tongue (pinch my fingers?) at every turn. I have a few pro-Trump friends who post stupid shit (it's pro-Trump, after all); I have a few libertarian friends who post stupid shit (they really love guns and really hate the $15/hour minimum wage); and I have a few nature-worshiping friends who post stupid shit (anti-vax garbage, Food Babe nonsense, etc.). But lately the worst, if only due to the sheer volume of their posts, are my "Bernie or Bust" friends. This post is for all of them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm losing respect for Bernie Sanders and his "revolution" with each passing day and each passing accusation of a "rigged" system. You mean the rigged system, in which the person winning is actually the person with $3 million more votes than her opponent? Again I will ask the question I've been asking repeatedly: How else should it be? For somebody running on a populous platform, Bernie Sanders is surprisingly indifferent to what the populous actually wants.
The thing is I really liked Sanders when he first got into the race, and I still agree with him on most issues. If he was going to be the Democratic nominee, I would support him, but, barring something very unusual, he's not. And what's worse, as his loss becomes more and more certain, he's spinning off further and further into the land of tinfoil hats and truthers, and he's taking many of his supporters with him. Sanders and Sanders fans repeatedly rail against a rigged system, but their notion of what this means is becoming more and more refined to the point that their current definition seems to be "any system in which Sanders is not the winner." It is getting to be quite absurd.
I mean, there are huge problems with "the system" in this country. You need huge amounts of money to run; the two major parties have a virtual duopoly on every important office; the winner-take-all (by state) Electoral College makes it so that only the votes in a few swing states actually "matter"; there is voter suppression through ID laws, long lines, etc.; so on and so forth. But if you just look at the primaries, in particular the Democratic primary, it is reasonably fair. It's not perfect, but it does have one really big thing going for it: The candidate whom most voters pick is the candidate who wins. That's it. That's how a relatively obscure one-term senator won in 2008 against the "establishment choice," and it's how Bernie could have won against the very same opponent. Turn out more voters and get more votes. Bernie tried. He's still trying. But he can't do it. His ideas aren't quite popular enough. Yes, it sucks, but that's how it goes.
And, now, instead of accepting this reality and making the best of it, he and many of his supporters are deeply in denial about it, blaming everybody and everything except their lack of votes. And if you really look at the things they are complaining about, there is just no there there. To wit:
Superdelegates
In theory superdelegates could be incredibly unfair, and I wish there weren't so many of them in the Democratic party. (I'd be fine to get rid of them altogether.) However, in practice, it's a moot point, because there has never been a Democratic primary in my lifetime (I only went back to 1976) in which a candidate had more pledged delegates, but lost due to superdelegates. In fact, 2008 completely belies the "superdelegates decide" narrative, because Clinton started with more than Obama, but they switched once Obama started beating her. This almost certainly would happen for Sanders if he started beating Hillary too. Sanders would be the Obama of 2016, if people voted for him like they did for Obama. But, like I said above, they aren't.
Also, it is more than a bit ironic that Sanders' only path to the nomination now relies largely on superdelegates. Do his supporters know this? Do they care? They are basically saying, "Superdelegates are totally unfair... except when our candidate needs them."
Closed Primaries
Bernie does better when independents are allowed to vote, not just registered Dems. But this is a tough one for me. Does it make sense that people who are not Democrats are allowed to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is? If we had a viable third party in this country (or better yet, viable fourth, fifth, and sixth parties) I would say no. But Sanders' hand is a bit forced, in that he has to run as a Democrat to be taken seriously (see Nader, Ralph). This inclines me to say yes to open primaries, as it is the only way people who aren't Democrats or Republicans can have a say real in who the candidates will be. However, I understand why the Democratic party wouldn't want it this way. I see both sides of this one.
But even if I concede that non-Democrats should be allowed to vote in primaries (and they are in some states) there are two big reasons why I still don't believe closed primaries have rigged the system in Clinton's favor: (a) Although Sanders does better in open primaries, he still doesn't do as good as Clinton. Doing the addition from this page, I get 798 pledged delegates for Clinton in open or semi-open primaries, and 547 for Sanders. Since pledged delegates are awarded more or less proportionally to the vote, this means Clinton beats Sanders 59%-41% even when independents are allowed to vote. (b) Sanders does especially well in caucuses, which are the least representative of the people and have the most byzantine rules. It's funny how I never hear Sanders' supporters complain about the unfairness of caucuses. Yes... funny.
The Nevada Fraud Imbroglio
I don't really want to get into this. You can Google it if you are interested. I'll just say that the stakes were -- what? -- two delegates? Five? Even if Bernie won all 35 pledged delegates in Nevada (which would be a highly undemocratic since Clinton got more votes, but I'm making a point) he still would be way behind. He still would have no realistic way of surpassing Hillary. It is so disingenuous for Sanders and his supports to claim the system is rigged because of this. It's like if there is two minutes left in a football game and your team is losing 34-10 and a field goal you make is disallowed because of a questionable call and you say, "See the game is fixed!"
The Wyoming primary was similar in this regard. So many people on Facebook posted that moronic Joe Scarborough clip, which is obviously little more than anti-Clinton trolling. First, consider the source: Joe Scarborough has a history of not knowing what he's talking about. Second, he makes no distinction between pledged delegates and superdelegates (again, superdelegates can and would switch allegiances if Bernie ever actually overtook Clinton in pledged delegates). So basically the entire issue is that one pledged delegate, one, was awarded to Clinton instead of Bernie because of how the vote was rounded. (There were 14 pledged delegates, and they split 7-7, because Sanders got 56% of the vote, which wasn't quite enough for an 8-6 split, since 8 out of 14 is a little more than 57%.)
Here's what Bernie's argument about Nevada and Wyoming boils down to: Currently Clinton is winning among pledged delegates 1,768 to 1,494, but you could make the case that perhaps it would be more fair if it was 1,763 to 1,499. The system is rigged!
The Wyoming primary was similar in this regard. So many people on Facebook posted that moronic Joe Scarborough clip, which is obviously little more than anti-Clinton trolling. First, consider the source: Joe Scarborough has a history of not knowing what he's talking about. Second, he makes no distinction between pledged delegates and superdelegates (again, superdelegates can and would switch allegiances if Bernie ever actually overtook Clinton in pledged delegates). So basically the entire issue is that one pledged delegate, one, was awarded to Clinton instead of Bernie because of how the vote was rounded. (There were 14 pledged delegates, and they split 7-7, because Sanders got 56% of the vote, which wasn't quite enough for an 8-6 split, since 8 out of 14 is a little more than 57%.)
Here's what Bernie's argument about Nevada and Wyoming boils down to: Currently Clinton is winning among pledged delegates 1,768 to 1,494, but you could make the case that perhaps it would be more fair if it was 1,763 to 1,499. The system is rigged!
The "Media Blackout"
I saved the best (i.e., the most ridiculous) for last. Here's what somebody posted on Facebook:
I thought to myself, "Media blackout? That doesn't sound right." So I Googled "Bernie Sanders New York rally" and here is a sample from the first page:
There's your media blackout, folks! This rally was only covered by such tiny outlets as CNN, NBC, Business Insider, the New York Times, and the BBC. (Not too mention ABC, Time, the New York Daily News, and the Observer, all on Page 2 of the search. I'm sure it would have kept on going if I had kept clicking through the pages.) Oh, and, by the way, Sanders did a great job drawing crowds; he was less successful at getting voters to the polls. He lost to Clinton by about a quarter million votes.
Now if you're argument is that there is not a literal blackout, but that Bernie receives less news attention. That is still a tough argument to make. As Charles Blow points out, a lot of Clinton's news is negative, and the LA Times says that since the beginning of 2016, after it became clear Bernie was going to be a real contender, the media started covering both the candidates equally. Furthermore, by my estimation, Sanders sometimes got unduly favorable media coverage because horse races get ratings; media outlets wanted to make the race seem closer than it was.
Plus, there really is no "the media" now. There is a lot of little media pockets that are inhabited by people who want to consume that specific type of media. Walter Cronkite died a long time ago. I think pretty much every potential voter in the Democratic primary knows who Bernie Sanders is and what he stands for. They had -- what? -- 10 nationally televised debates? Everybody who wants to be well-formed about the candidates is. A conspiratorial media blackout depriving voters of information about Bernie Sanders is incredibly difficult to swallow.
Here's my bottom line with Bernie and his supporters: If you like Sanders and want to support him to the bitter end, great. If you loathe Hillary and can't support her under any circumstances, that's also great. I'm assuming you know what's at stake if she loses the general election (it's something loud and orange that wants to build a giant wall), and if you still chose not to vote for her, then that's your choice. I'm not going to begrudge you for that. However, it would be nice if y'all could come back to reality. That's my request: Vote how you are going to vote; support whom you are going to support; but just come out of your left-wing bubble. You lost fair in square. Now stop pedaling bullshit -- the right already has that market cornered.
OK, that's it. I feel better now. Thanks for listening.
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment