Is There a Good Reason for Sanders to Continue in the Primaries?

[Nous]

In a HuffPo article, Jesse Andreozzi quotes a statement from Sanders--“I will fight as hard as I can to make certain that Donald Trump does not become president of the United States”--and goes on to argue that by remaining in the race, Sanders is harming Clinton’s chances of winning the election for President. In essence Andreozzi’s argument is that Sander’s continued campaign is encouraging a schism among Democratic voters, whereas, if he were true to his stated goal of keeping Trump out of the White House, he should now be trying to unify the Democratic vote (as Republicans are currently doing).

Is that true? Does Sanders’ continuing campaign make people less likely to vote for Clinton for President? Andreozzi does note statements Trump made in April: “I’m going to be taking a lot of the things Sanders said and using them . . . I can reread some of his speeches and get some very good material.” (Trump should definitely aspire to being as respectful as Sanders and Clinton have been to each other.)

Andreozzi also says this:

It’s a matter of protecting his legacy as well. If Sanders shows he can support his colleagues and work together with his constituents, he will gain greater respect and influence upon his return to the Senate. As a progressive titan, he could harness the momentum of his presidential campaign and work to elect Congressional candidates supportive of his policies and beliefs. This can help make his “political revolution” a reality.​

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-andreozzi/losing-the-bern-how-the-s_b_9939660.html?

Perhaps Andreozzi has a point there.

In any case, it is true that the funds that Clinton spends on primaries against Sanders could be put to use in the campaign against Trump. Moreover, I would think that at this point any candidate could use a break from the endless whistle stops, pancake breakfasts, handshaking, baby-kissing, sound-biting, photo-opping, back-slapping, and other indignities of running for political office. I just hate those vacations where you’re constantly on the move, sleeping in a different bed every night, which is what I image Presidential campaigns to be. I don’t blame Carter at all for hanging out in the Rose Garden. That’s what I would have done even if there weren’t hostages in Iran.

So, is there any good reason for Sanders to remain in the primaries? If so, what is that reason?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, is there any good reason for Sanders to remain in the primaries?

Yes.

If so, what is that reason?

Minimally, the fact that millions of people in Kentucky, Oregon, Washington, Virgin Islands Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia deserve to have their say and to have that say respected.

 

[von bek]

Yes, there are good reasons for Bernie Sanders to continue on in the Primaries. Primarily, he obviously represents a sizable number of American voters who deserve to be listened to. By continuing his campaign, at the least he forces Clinton to take these voters seriously in terms of how she presents her own message. She will have to go on record as supporting or rejecting what he proposes. Once she is on record, at least there is something to hold her accountable for. (Don't get me wrong, I have little faith in her promises.)

Watch, when Sanders is out of the race, Clinton will shift right in order to capture Republicans who don't like Trump.

 

[Laika]

In terms of the numbers, yes, Sanders should drop out. But this isn't simply a difference of personality but on policy and this isn't a "normal" election. It isn't a question of brand image but of deeper ideological differences. There is substance to what Sanders represents and Clinton needs to take those voters into account. Clinton needs to win over both the left of her party and the establishment of the Republican Party to have a viable electoral coalition to be sure of beating trump. There is a problem if the republican right sets the agenda and the democrats then follow suit. The democrats will just keep heading right unless Sanders and his supporters can at least put the breaks on it. If moderate republicans start to agree that Trump represents a threat to the U.S. And can be convinced to vote democrat Then Clinton will be in the White House.
It's hard to see what the U.S. Political landscape will look like in 4 fours time if the polarisation just keeps going so the democrats have to get their act together and unify the country and not simply by appeasing trump voters as the "centre ground" is dragged to the far right. If Clinton gets elected she will have to build on the fragile "recovery" that Obama started. If Trump won the election that would be it for both establishment republicans and democrats. They would have completely lost control of the situation.

Ask yourself What would a Democratic Party look like if Trump won? They can't really miss the opportunity to try and bring the U.S. Together behind Clinton because I don't think anyone knows what the alternative would look like (or would want to).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In terms of the numbers, yes, Sanders should drop out. But this isn't simply a difference of personality but on policy and this isn't a "normal" election. It isn't a question of brand image but of deeper ideological differences. There is substance to what Sanders represents and Clinton needs to take those voters into account. Clinton needs to win over both the left of her party and the establishment of the Republican Party to have a viable electoral coalition to be sure of beating trump. There is a problem if the republican right sets the agenda and the democrats then follow suit. The democrats will just keep heading right unless Sanders and his supporters can at least put the breaks on it. If moderate republicans start to agree that Trump represents a threat to the U.S. And can be convinced to vote democrat Then Clinton will be in the White House.
It's hard to see what the U.S. Political landscape will look like in 4 fours time if the polarisation just keeps going so the democrats have to get their act together and unify the country and not simply by appeasing trump voters as the "centre ground" is dragged to the far right. If Clinton gets elected she will have to build on the fragile "recovery" that Obama started. If Trump won the election that would be it for both establishment republicans and democrats. They would have completely lost control of the situation.

Ask yourself What would a Democratic Party look like if Trump won? They can't really miss the opportunity to try and bring the U.S. Together behind Clinton because I don't think anyone knows what the alternative would look like (or would want to).

Huh?

 

[Laika]

Huh?

By staying in Sanders may be able to stop the democrats drifting rightward a by appeasing Trump voters?

(Edit: I have to concede that's grasping at straws as Clinton might as well be a Republican. America is just completely screwed and its politics are now barely distinguishable from fascism minus an ideologically motivated one party system. I am genuinely struggling to see any constitutional mechanism that might reverse this).

 

[Revoltingest]

Sanders should stay in simply because.....
- I like variety.
- I prefer him to Clinton & Trump.
- He still might influence things in a more peaceful foreign policy direction.

 

[Underhill]

I doubt Sanders is hurting Clinton at all. This election is so divisive, that 95% of the population already knows who they are voting for. Add in the fact that the longer he stays in it, the less limelight is on Clinton and her scandal and I think he may be doing her a favor.

And then there is the minuscule chance that something actually comes from the FBI investigation (I see no evidence of this but we shall see) it would be nice to have someone in the wings.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By staying in Sanders may be able to stop the democrats drifting rightward a by appeasing Trump voters?

Is that intended as a statement or a question?

 

[Laika]

A

Is that intended as a statement or a question?

A statement. But a totally ludicrous one in terms of probabilities.

 

[That one dude...]

My answer to the OP's question is yes. The longer he remains a thorn in Hillary's side the better. Here's another question, though:
Is it feasible for Bernie to stay in the running during the general election as an independent candidate after losing the Democratic nomination? He could be a thorn in Trump's side as well. He seems to be the best of the 3.

 

[Underhill]

My answer to the OP's question is yes. The longer he remains a thorn in Hillary's side the better. Here's another question, though:
Is it feasible for Bernie to stay in the running during the general election as an independent candidate after losing the Democratic nomination? He could be a thorn in Trump's side as well. He seems to be the best of the 3.

That's where he would definitely screw Clinton. Without him in, she has a good chance, with him in the race, she has no chance.

Bernie may pull a few percentage points from Trump, but the vast majority of lost votes would come from Clinton under any reasonable scenario I can imagine.

Could he win? I doubt it. Against 2 parties each pushing hundreds of millions in ad buys? I think it would guarantee a win for Trump. The election math would probably end up 45/20/35 (Trump/Bernie/Clinton) or something around there.

 

[Nous]

Obviously no one here has argued that Sanders continuing in the primaries will be effective in keeping Trump out of the White House. Given that it requires Clinton and funders of her campaign to spend money on primary races that could be spent on the race against Trump, it certainly seems doubtful that Sanders’ continuing campaign could help to defeat Trump.

So I ask: Is keeping Trump out of the White House an important goal for Sanders supporters?

Is there any point or circumstance in which you would support Sanders pulling out of the primaries?

 

[metis]

So I ask: Is keeping Trump out of the White House an important goal for Sanders supporters?

Is there any point or circumstance in which you would support Sanders pulling out of the primaries?

To the first question, in part yes. To the second, as long as it doesn't get too nasty, I don't think it makes much of a difference one way or the other. I think Bernie wants some leverage at the convention, and he can only do that if he stays in.

 

[Nous]

To the second, as long as it doesn't get too nasty, I don't think it makes much of a difference one way or the other.

Until yesterday I would have mostly agreed that Sanders staying in the race doesn't make much difference (except for the fact that it requires Clinton and her funders to spend money in trying to defeat Sanders that could be spent trying to defeat Trump--which is kind of an important fact). But just yesterday I caught a brief discussion among the commentators on CNN about Sanders or his candidacy inflaming an increasing animosity toward Clinton. This was in the context of death threats made by Sanders supporters against the Nevada Democratic Convention chairperson. (I got the impression the people issuing these death threats might not be voting for Clinton in the general election.)

I think Bernie wants some leverage at the convention, and he can only do that if he stays in.

What does "leverage at the convention" mean? Leverage to effect what result?

What about the leverage or clout or good will among Congressional Democrats that Sanders might gain by not running the primary races to the wall, which Andreozzi spoke of?

 

[metis]

What does "leverage at the convention" mean? Leverage to effect what result?

What about the leverage or clout or good will among Congressional Democrats that Sanders might gain by not running the primary races to the wall, which Andreozzi spoke of?

Because Sanders has such a large following, and because they and he will be at the convention, the Dem leaders cannot ignore him and them without committing political suicide. Even though it's highly unlikely he'll get the nomination, he still can have a significant influence on both the platform plus what Hillary runs on. If she doesn't, she'd be opening the door wide open for Trump to-- heave forbid!-- become our next president.

 

[Nous]

Because Sanders has such a large following, and because they and he will be at the convention, the Dem leaders cannot ignore him and them without committing political suicide. Even though it's highly unlikely he'll get the nomination, he still can have a significant influence on both the platform plus what Hillary runs on.

I'm skeptical that his continuing in the primaries will result in any significant change in the Democratic platform. What change in the Democratic platform might he insist on?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think it's good for Sanders to stay in to help maintain the infinitely tenuous illusion, for a bit longer, that our political system and process is at all valid or meaningful for the population at large.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is important to avoid the frustration that comes with the idea that a candidate that people actually like has no chance of attaining proeminence.

That alone is a good reason for him to continue for as long as reasonably possible.

 

[metis]

I'm skeptical that his continuing in the primaries will result in any significant change in the Democratic platform. What change in the Democratic platform might he insist on?

Wall Street reform for one, but also more of a reluctance to get embroiled in another war type of position. She's no idiot, and her seeing where Bernie's enthusiastic support is coming from and why has to have an influence on her.