2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton Faces Call for New Ethics Investigation After Son-in-Law Asked for a Business Favor [View all]Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)supporters often post good things about Sanders and nevertheless have pro-Sanders threads drug down with endless bullshit blather from Royalists who drone on-and-on about her "inevitability" and her "irrefutable electability" and her supposed "invulnerability."
If you love her tepid platform so much, perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad idea to try advocating why those milquetoast policies are so great instead of continually arguing that the primary is already over before anyone has exercised their franchise.
In the face of such anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) blather, one occasionally feels motivated to call attention to the facts which contradict this counterproductive nonsense about Clinton's much exaggerated inevitability, electability, and invulnerability.
I get that Sanders is the underdog. I understand that Clinton will -- more likely than not -- be the nominee, and I will support her if that comes to pass. I will vote for the lesser of two disappointments, if it comes to that in the general election, but -- for the primary at least -- I'll vote for something I believe in rather than merely voting for the least depressing alternative to a Republican administration.
However, in the meantime, we are entitled to a primary and we are entitled to prefer a candidate with progressive and liberal views instead of third-way moderation and more of the worst parts of the status quo and we are entitled to advocate in favor of that candidate who reflects our hopes and values.
The truth is that Clinton's campaign would benefit from this debate as much any campaign. If the Clinton supporters are right, and her moderate third-way centerism is appealing to the masses, then Clinton and her supporters are missing a great opportunity to use the primary as an avenue to identify Clinton as the right-of-Sanders but left-of-Pataki/Christie/etc. option -- that's a pretty big chunk of turf she could be claiming in the middle of the ideological field. By arguing, instead, that people should support Clinton because "it's a done deal" is promoting an argument that is not appealing for anyone in the primary or the general election -- it is a counterproductive argument that makes Clinton weaker in the general election.
If you are tired of seeing posts that bring the counterargument to the inevitability, electability, and invulnerability nonsense, maybe it would be a better idea to move the debate to policy differences instead of the worn inevitability, electability, and invulnerability themes.