The Rebel

[malthaussen]

4. Poor George McGovern casts a long shadow.

I think, though, that those who would have voted for Nixon in '72 (or '68, if it comes to that) would not vote for Trump in '16: as reprehensible as Mr Nixon might have been (and as psychotic), he was not such a bad candidate, whereas Mr Trump is awe-inspiring in how horrible he is to contemplate. Nevertheless, some might stay home on Election Day, which could have the same effect as a vote for Trump.

However, the Clinton camp seems to be taking a fiendish delight in alienating voters. Again, those voters would not vote for Mr Trump in the GE (presuming him to be the candidate), but they might stay home. The youth vote troubles me for this reason. They were a valuable component of Mr Obama's wins in '08 and '12, yet the Clinton camp appears to have no desire to cultivate them, and worse, seems intent on disciplining them for having the temerity to support Mr Sanders. Supposing that Mrs Clinton does win the nomination, what will happen with those she has treated with such disdain? They aren't fools enough to vote for Mr Trump, but they could well throw up their hands and decide to stay home, and if they do, does Mrs Clinton have enough support without them to negate the GOP faithful, who will dutifully turn out to elect their chosen one? OTOH, some of the more impatient of the supporters of Mr Sanders are also showing a tendency to take out their frustrations with those who support Mrs Clinton by insulting them, as well, and what happens with these people if Mr Sanders is the candidate? We should be in the business of encouraging voters, whomever they want, rather than ridiculing the ones with whom we disagree. Which is, of course, exactly the point you are gently trying to make.

What bothered me about SC was not that Mr Sanders lost -- which was rather expected, after all -- but that so few Democrats made an effort to vote. Mr Sanders has tirelessly repeated that only by a strong-swelling movement will he be able to win. But this is also true of the General Election: whomever the Democratic Party finally decides on will have to muster enough enthusiasm to outnnumber those who would vote GOP. While I do still believe that Mr Trump is an appalling enough candidate to motivate a plurality to vote against him, there is no question that "I'm the better of two evils" is not an inspirational message. Appalling Republicans have won the election before. It is not impossible they could win again.

One other thing that depresses me is this: stipulate Mrs Clinton does gain the nomination, what will be the lesson learned by the Party's candidates and power-brokers? That they were right all along? That their procedures and conduct were the correct ones? That, now that the lip-service and waffling has attained the desired objective, it can all be forgotten and business gotten on with as usual? Somehow, I don't see anyone involved wiping their brows and saying "Whew, that was a close one, we better make some changes." That would mean the candidate and the machine are capable of learning from error. Perhaps, even, they are: but who would see any error in a primary victory?

-- Mal