The Difference Between Clinton and Sanders Supporters
I am not a pie in the sky idealist; I'm realist. I don't see the world in just black and white; I see all shades of gray in between. I am willing to compromise with those that don't view the world as I do if that will move me closer to achieving my goals. I'm not a dreamer, I'm a doer; I get things done. So I approach politics from that prospective.
That doesn't mean that I don't have principals and idealistic goals, far from it. What it means is even if we had identical principles and goals, you and I go would go about trying to make the world a better place using very different methods. With you it seems to all or nothing; you go for the whole enchilada even if the odds of succeeding are very much against you. I tend chose incremental steps with high probabilities of success, and then I chose the next step, and then another. In some cases when the odds are very much against succeeding, not allowing the other side to win is equivalent to a victory.
In large measure that explains our choice of candidates. The Sanders campaign was an all or nothing affair from the start. ....
Rest of article here: The Difference Between Clinton and Sanders Supporters
= new reply since forum marked as read
CanjunBlazer!
Great post, thank you!
The "gambling" analogy is perfect.
I suspect the different approaches come from a combination of life experiences and circumstances. So much progress and success is hard fought and therefore incredibly valuable. It is definitely not something many of us are willing to risk on almost certain failure. It also says everything about the ability to not just take risk but to absorb the loss. Clinton supporters are just as serious, if not more so about the challenges that lie ahead. Many just have more to lose.
