"I don't understand how anyone, with above average intelligence, irregardless of their political views, could choose to vote for Trump over the eventual Democratic nominee...unless that person has deep sexist or racist ideals."--person on FacebookEric loves it when I point out minor gaffes like this because invariably I make a similar mistake in the effort. Which is weird since I'm not really a mistake-making kind of dude.
So here's all I'm going to say about this: there is an assumption that, because supporters of Bernie Sanders aren't eagerly embracing Hillary Clinton at this moment, they are not going to support her in November. Some will not, I'm sure--I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 in large part because I knew Oregon was not at risk of going for Mittens and, had it, that would not change the final tally.
These are the times Eric says "good luck voting for Kucinich."
Note: Eric has a huge crush on Joe Biden.
There are many Clinton supporters who assert that Clinton and Sanders stand for the same things, or are basically similar candidates. And maybe, on a multidimensional map where the maximum and minimum for each axes covers ever millimeter of the political spectrum, they are pretty closely clustered. When you put Trump or Cruz or JEB?! on that same map and that context might be enlightening (note: it would only be enlightening if you understand that context is critical and you've stopped assuming that Republican and Democrat are more different than they are alike).
As she did 8 years ago, Hillary Clinton insists on being exactly who you want her to be right in that moment. Mitt Romney and JEB?! were the same: more about being the epitome of mainstream experience than standing for anything on its own. As stupid as they are, Trump and Cruz have done an amazing job of standing for something. With Trump it's not perfectly clear and shifts a bit from hour to hour; with Cruz it's about ignoring the Constitution in order to honor the Constitution and Jesus (as most Canadians do).
If Hillary Clinton stands for anything it's "Hillary Clinton should be President". It's not the worst raison d'être but it's a bit different from "Hillary Clinton should be President and we should also talk about doing something about income inequality" (which is different from doing something about income inequality).
People who hold up the 2000 election with Nader siphoning votes that would have secured Gore's election (an election he won, by the way, despite the "do not use this for precedent" SCOTUS ruling) might want to consider how things would have played out had Gore actively courted Nader's supporters instead of just assuming they'd ultimately back him. Crashing the Party (which is a book that I have read) is a pretty good take on how Nader's supporters were treated and later, conveniently, blamed.
Obama took on an obligation to reform healthcare when John (big dick narcissist) Edwards endorsed him in 2008.
Hillary Clinton started receiving a lot of support from Wall Street and the big banks in 2014, in part because they didn't see any serious candidate to back on the Republican side (they are greed personified but they are not stupid). She "understands how things work".
So the idea that she is a progressive, and has always represented a progressive agenda is disingenuous at best. There are plenty of good reasons to support her on her merits: she knows how to get shit done (and I mean this in a positive manner); she doesn't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough"; and she is probably the best candidate to return Congress to its old, productive levels of dysfunction. Frankly, her Presidency is all too perfect karma for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and their
She represents something so much worse that 8 years of Obama; Bernie doesn't deliver that. That may be the best reason to support her.
What's my point? I forget.
Hillary 2016, for Rush